Falkirk v Morton

[SpoonTon]

44 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

Erm, we spent the entirety of Tuesday night's game insisting on passing it from the back. That this passing too often occurs at a glacial pace and with zero connection - at least after 0-1 - between the back four/Wilson and a line of 5 players hiding 30 yards up the park from them are two of the key reasons why we're stinking the place out right now. 

I don't disagree with your personnel points other than to argue that Lyall is overrated and simply shouldn't be playing, though we can certainly add Moffat into that bracket too. Lyall's CV is as padded as our GM - if 'Rangers' weren't on it, then he would already be sliding down to East Kilbride's current level.

Perhaps he'll manage that with us unless we jettison these Joe McKee-esque sand-dancers. Although I'm genuinely unsure as to which side of that comparison should be offended right now. 

We didn't seem to have any problems passing the ball quickly up the pitch, sometimes at distance, to create opportunities on Tuesday. But we had plenty of problems trying to take the chances we created. We're certainly trying to be much more of a passing team now but I don't see it as Kenny Shiels type 'pass your way out your own box' stuff, and I don't think it's at the level that it looked like Imrie planned at the start. 

The style isn't the biggest factor for me. We had similar spells last season, and the problems were similar then with a different style of football - not taking chances and then conceding. 

[vikingTON]

28 minutes ago, SpoonTon said:

We didn't seem to have any problems passing the ball quickly up the pitch, sometimes at distance, to create opportunities on Tuesday. But we had plenty of problems trying to take the chances we created. 

In the first 25 minutes, I agree. But as soon as we went behind and QP no longer had any need to be baited by our one trick, the remaining 65 minutes was completely turgid Johanssonball with two utterly disconnected halves of the team - the front one with multiple passengers hiding from any responsibility. IIRC we created one even half-decent chance after the goal, in the lion's share of that game. That is an utterly pathetic output for that 'philosophy of football', which belongs in the bin. 

The only reason why it wasn't 'Kenny Shiels stuff' was because the opposition no longer needed to put us under any pressure. They knew that we would never break them down and could try to pick us off on the break instead. Our utterly abysmal record once going behind in the season is testimony to the fact that the plan is utterly hopeless if our hotshot forwards fail to convert first.

Which is a racing certainty in most weeks because our most proven goalscoring threat - excluding legacy goals for McGinn - is Cameron Blues. 

Edited November 2 by vikingTON

[SpoonTon]

46 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

In the first 25 minutes, I agree. But as soon as we went behind and QP no longer had any need to be baited by our one trick, the remaining 65 minutes was completely turgid Johanssonball with two utterly disconnected halves of the team - the front one with multiple passengers hiding from any responsibility. IIRC we created one even half-decent chance after the goal, in the lion's share of that game. That is an utterly pathetic output for that 'philosophy of football', which belongs in the bin. 

The only reason why it wasn't 'Kenny Shiels stuff' was because the opposition no longer needed to put us under any pressure. They knew that we would never break them down and could try to pick us off on the break instead. Our utterly abysmal record once going behind in the season is testimony to the fact that the plan is utterly hopeless if our hotshot forwards fail to convert first.

Which is a racing certainty in most weeks because our most proven goalscoring threat - excluding legacy goals for McGinn - is Cameron Blues. 

The problem amounted to the same at a similar stage last season, though. The midfield struggled to get involved and we were hitting long balls to a disconnected attack who couldn't take the ball in. Whatever type of football you play, you have to have the tools to make it work - and you have to have players who can score. 

If we had stuck to exactly the same type of football, there's nothing to say we'd be any better off, because we'd have actually had to have successfully replaced Oakley. We relied too heavily on too few players last season. 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, SpoonTon said:

The problem amounted to the same at a similar stage last season, though. The midfield struggled to get involved and we were hitting long balls to a disconnected attack who couldn't take the ball in. Whatever type of football you play, you have to have the tools to make it work - and you have to have players who can score. 

If we had stuck to exactly the same type of football, there's nothing to say we'd be any better off, because we'd have actually had to have successfully replaced Oakley. We relied too heavily on too few players last season. 

We didn't need to directly replace Oakley to still press effectively as a unit and pose any form of physical threat (either strength or pace) against an opposition back line though. This is where the entirely understandable attempt to reform the playing style has simply gone too far in the opposite direction*. The attacking half of the team now contains at least one too many tippy tappy soft touches that means that we get reliably carved open without the ball. As Queen's Park's goal on Tuesday night demonstrated perfectly - Moffat fails to even attempt to track a basic full-back run and ends the game with an legitimately negative xG as a result. Lyall is no better week to week - that is the key issue.

So much so that this busted flush, floating no. 10s masterplan is now dragging down a defensive unit that, if fit with the exception of Corr's issue, is IMO a clear overall upgrade on last season. And I don't think the emergency goalkeeper has been a factor at all in our current form. It could've easily been worse then.

Finally, this issue is only likely to worsen as the campaign goes on. If you're an opposition manager, our currently gormless approach without any serious physical threat or plan B invites you to press higher up the park without serious risk and suffocate even Wilson's game at the base of our midfield going forward. We are far too easy to suss out and respond to right now - that needs to change regardless of getting key players back. A team with our relative resources at this level that cannot mix things up is going to get pasted at least half of the time, which spells a desperate relegation struggle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*To be fair, I presume Reynolds was signed to offer the same pace option that Samuels has since been signed to offer. Let's all marvel at our GM and his 'minerals' transfer strategy then, as even a very limited Jai Quitongo is still twice the player of his two replacements.

Edited November 2 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

NB: While Millen's absence has been cited as a negative factor, his return has yielded a collective 0-7 scoreline and hee-haw points.

If only there was an already proven assistant manager out there who would ruthlessly weed out sand-dancing dross and impose the correct performance standards to avoid relegation at this level. 

Arise again, Sir David.

Edited November 2 by vikingTON

[dunning1874]

I think there's some massive missing of the point on both sides here in the analysis of this, where some people in the wider support are jumping straight to "sack Imrie" which is obviously a bad idea, while others are jumping straight to "Imrie is blameless, fan ownership is a binfire, burn the board at the stake"

Both are wrong takes. Imrie has made an absolute cunt of this summer. He is undoubtedly the best Morton manager in my lifetime but he is doing an exceptional job of disappearing up his own arse this season. Cynical as it is I can't get away from the idea that this reinvention of style of play is more about his own reputation than what will win games for Morton, because Big Bad Physical Morton was not going to get him a move to a St Johnstone or Ross County type. However valid that cynicism is, he's still making an arse of this on it's own terms of what's best for Morton.

We need the reset we had two years ago when we lost 5-1 to Partick. The problem is the squad he's built shows no sign of being able to handle that switch. There is no one in front of Iain Wilson who knows what pressing is, when two years ago he had very obvious fixes like "pick Lewis Strapp at left back instead of Alex King" he now does not have such obvious scales from the eyes solutions and clings to such ridiculous delusions as 37 year old Niall McGinn being a tenth of the player 33 year old Niall McGinn was. Good luck to him finding a pressing unit to replicate the Crawford, Quitongo +1 three from the 11 attacking midfielders he's signed when none of them know what "pressing" is. He's pulled us out of a hole three times already, but this mess of his own making is the worst yet.

No matter how shit Imrie’s budget is compared to Hamilton's, never mind Falkirk/Raith/Partick/Livingston levels, he is the one who chose to spend whatever he had on 8 million attacking midfielders when he could have signed a (one, singular) back up full back and not seen us become an imbalanced shambles as soon as either Ballantyne or Delaney were injured. He has absolutely fucked it.

[Cet Homme Charmant]

On 11/2/2024 at 7:22 PM, vikingTON said:

Just saw this - I'd agree but would say that it's far more than just modern business practice; the Scottish public sector has a similar stratum of absolute chancers who reliably fail their way from one (six figure salary) post to another. 

I think we have to be realistic and accept that we're so far down the pecking order we'd be of little interest to someone with the demonstrable acumen required to successfully run a professional football club. And even if we did get the interest of such a candidate, we probably couldn't afford the salary they would demand anyway.

If that's the case, then the only realistic options are either go for someone with a relatively modest CV, or take a punt on a younger candidate who's unproven but shows creativity, ambition and potential. Option 2 seems to be the one we chose and there's nothing wrong with that per se but it is of course risky, therefore it requires a high degree of scrutiny in the interview stage to separate the 'chancers' from those who not only have a solid and innovative business plan, but also the ability to execute it. There's no point in having the best ideas in the world if they don't have the management skills to implement them. Drilling down to that level of detail requires a lot of experience and expertise in the interviewing process, and I'm not really sure we have that at board level.

Edited November 4 by Cet Homme Charmant

[Alan_Partridge_Ton]

9 hours ago, vikingTON said:

NB: While Millen's absence has been cited as a negative factor, his return has yielded a collective 0-7 scoreline and hee-haw points.

If only there was an already proven assistant manager out there who would ruthlessly weed out sand-dancing dross and impose the correct performance standards to avoid relegation at this level. 

Arise again, Sir David.

Who’s this beautiful blond man with a lovely voice? It’s David Irons!

[Alan_Partridge_Ton]

5 hours ago, dunning1874 said:

I think there's some massive missing of the point on both sides here in the analysis of this, where some people in the wider support are jumping straight to "sack Imrie" which is obviously a bad idea, while others are jumping straight to "Imrie is blameless, fan ownership is a binfire, burn the board at the stake"

Both are wrong takes. Imrie has made an absolute cunt of this summer. He is undoubtedly the best Morton manager in my lifetime but he is doing an exceptional job of disappearing up his own arse this season. Cynical as it is I can't get away from the idea that this reinvention of style of play is more about his own reputation than what will win games for Morton, because Big Bad Physical Morton was not going to get him a move to a St Johnstone or Ross County type. However valid that cynicism is, he's still making an arse of this on it's own terms of what's best for Morton.

We need the reset we had two years ago when we lost 5-1 to Partick. The problem is the squad he's built shows no sign of being able to handle that switch. There is no one in front of Iain Wilson who knows what pressing is, when two years ago he had very obvious fixes like "pick Lewis Strapp at left back instead of Alex King" he now does not have such obvious scales from the eyes solutions and clings to such ridiculous delusions as 37 year old Niall McGinn being a tenth of the player 33 year old Niall McGinn was. Good luck to him finding a pressing unit to replicate the Crawford, Quitongo +1 three from the 11 attacking midfielders he's signed when none of them know what "pressing" is. He's pulled us out of a hole three times already, but this mess of his own making is the worst yet.

No matter how shit Imrie’s budget is compared to Hamilton's, never mind Falkirk/Raith/Partick/Livingston levels, he is the one who chose to spend whatever he had on 8 million attacking midfielders when he could have signed a (one, singular) back up full back and not seen us become an imbalanced shambles as soon as either Ballantyne or Delaney were injured. He has absolutely fucked it.

Well, there’s no need for that!

[capitanus]

2 hours ago, Alan_Partridge_Ton said:

Well, there’s no need for that!

He could have said he made a complete 'Miles Hunt' of it.

Do you think David Irons could be the new Brian Wake?

[BishopBrennan]

20 hours ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

I think we have to be realistic and kind of accept that we're so far down the pecking order we'd be of little interest to someone with the demonstrable acumen required to successfully run a professional football club. And even if we did get the interest of such a candidate, we probably couldn't afford the salary they would demand anyway.

If that's the case, then the only realistic options are either go for someone with a relatively modest CV, or take a punt on a younger candidate who's unproven but shows creativity, ambition and potential. Option 2 seems to be the one we've have opted for and there's nothing wrong with that per se, but it is of course a risky option that requires a high degree of scrutiny in the interview stage to separate the 'chancers' from the those who not only have a solid and innovative business plan, but also the ability to execute it. There's no point in having the best ideas in the world if you don't have the people management skills to implement them. Drilling down to that level of detail requires a lot of experience and expertise in the interviewing process, and I'm not really sure we have that at board level.

I think that is a crucial point, I don't think we have either the experience or the expertise at board level to weed these people out. The turnover of club staff in the last couple of years is a concern, and while the wages we offer may be a factor, I would suggest our hiring process isn't good enough. 

[Cet Homme Charmant]

2 hours ago, BishopBrennan said:

I think that is a crucial point, I don't think we have either the experience or the expertise at board level to weed these people out. The turnover of club staff in the last couple of years is a concern, and while the wages we offer may be a factor, I would suggest our hiring process isn't good enough. 

A good example is the decision to buy the land between the cowshed and the Norseman with a vague 'watch-this-space' teaser, only for it to go very quiet apparently due to the lack of money to actually do something with it. Why was this purchase approved without a solid development plan and the finance in place to actually implement it? It's an example of lack of proper scrutiny and diligence at board level, which is especially concerning as it's inevitable Cappielow will need some investment in the not-too-distant future, and we should be building up a fund for that instead of wasting cash on speculative land purchases.

Edited November 4 by Cet Homme Charmant

[macca937]

26 minutes ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

A good example is the decision to buy the land between the cowshed and the Norseman with a vague 'watch-this-space' teaser, only for it to go very quiet apparently due to the lack of money to actually do something with it. Why was this purchase approved without a solid development plan and the finance in place to actually implement it? It's an example of lack of proper scrutiny and diligence at board level, which is especially concerning as it's inevitable Cappielow will need some investment in the not-too-distant future, and we should be building up a fund for that instead of wasting cash on speculative land purchases.

I thought I read somewhere the land was donated by Inverclyde council. Hope we did not actually spend money on it. 

[Cet Homme Charmant]

20 minutes ago, macca937 said:

I thought I read somewhere the land was donated by Inverclyde council. Hope we did not actually spend money on it. 

If that's the case and it was donated for free, then fair enough. Checked back on the Tele article from November 2022 and it just mentions that it was 'snapped up' but it didn't explicitly say if it was donated or purchased. 

Edit to add: Inverclyde Now was equally vague, only saying the land was 'acquired' 

https://www.inverclydenow.com/morton-secure-land-at-cappielow-for-development/

Edited November 4 by Cet Homme Charmant

[TONofmemories]

1 hour ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:

A good example is the decision to buy the land between the cowshed and the Norseman with a vague 'watch-this-space' teaser, only for it to go very quiet apparently due to the lack of money to actually do something with it. Why was this purchase approved without a solid development plan and the finance in place to actually implement it? It's an example of lack of proper scrutiny and diligence at board level, which is especially concerning as it's inevitable Cappielow will need some investment in the not-too-distant future, and we should be building up a fund for that instead of wasting cash on speculative land purchases.

On this point about the land, it's bugging me that we've not bothered to at least conduct a feasibility study for something temporary (similar to what Cove have). A few kitted out portakabins like they have would do just fine. We were quick to go out to local business to furnish and do up the new house we purchased; why not do the same here and start earning an income from the space by means of a bar/social space. Speculate to accumulate. 

[HamCam]

3 hours ago, macca937 said:

I thought I read somewhere the land was donated by Inverclyde council. Hope we did not actually spend money on it. 

I think that is highly unlikely. The Council is obliged to extract market value for all land and property assets.

[Tink]

25 minutes ago, HamCam said:

I think that is highly unlikely. The Council is obliged to extract market value for all land and property assets.

That’s incorrect. Under the Transfer of Assets scheme, local authorities are obliged to consider any offer for the use of land or property assets from community organisations (like MCT) which may be better than their existing use. They can gift the land or accept a reduced price, if considered appropriate. I’m sure I read or heard somewhere that the price was a couple of hundred pounds. 
 

Regardless of that, it is still inexcusable that the finance director announced that a development of the land was in the pipeline and would be ready within months, and then the GM announces two years later that the plans have been shelved.

[HamCam]

1 hour ago, Tink said:

That’s incorrect. Under the Transfer of Assets scheme, local authorities are obliged to consider any offer for the use of land or property assets from community organisations (like MCT) which may be better than their existing use. They can gift the land or accept a reduced price, if considered appropriate. I’m sure I read or heard somewhere that the price was a couple of hundred pounds. 
 

Regardless of that, it is still inexcusable that the finance director announced that a development of the land was in the pipeline and would be ready within months, and then the GM announces two years later that the plans have been shelved.

You are correct and normally in such 'exceptional' circumstances the Council has to be satisfied the purchaser genuinely intends to proceed with the intended use/development within a reasonable timescale. To date, GMFC appear to have done very little to justify a community purchase. 

[Cet Homme Charmant]

Given this afternoon's news, I think IDC have more to worry about right now

[capitanus]

On 11/2/2024 at 6:22 PM, vikingTON said:

Just saw this - I'd agree but would say that it's far more than just modern business practice; the Scottish public sector has a similar stratum of absolute chancers who reliably fail their way from one (six figure salary) post to another. 

Indeed your right, that has been the hallmark of many a careerist wanker in the Scottish public sector in the SNP era.