vikingTON
-
Posts
21856 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
297
Posts posted by vikingTON
-
-
45 minutes ago, dunning1874 said:
It's the fixed starting point because it's when Muirhead lost form and the whole discussion is about his contribution from the point he lost his form. Including his unquestionable positive contribution before that date would therefore be irrelevant, because no one is questioning that he was very good earlier in the season. Moving the start date forward would make no sense because it is still when his ongoing spell of poor form started. You know this.
Erm no - because when you claim that fringe jobbers are contributing more to the team based on recent form, then an objective definition of 'recent' is actually required for any meaningful comparison.
Instead you opted for an entirely arbitrary start point that is not even recent at all any more. And also tried to pass off Muirhead starting as a right-sided forward last week for the first time since 1997 to 'show' that Bearne is definitely competing for the same position in the team.
These exercisye in cherry-picking and straw-clutching has all been to demonstrate that err, one of the squad fringe players produced just as many goal contributions in his best run of the season as Muirhead did in his worst. Which does not in fact make a credible case for your Garrity and Bearne dream team starting lineup as a solution to our lamentable tailspin, in the same way that your argument that Lewis McGrattan was the integral player in our victories last season was not credible either.
-
12 hours ago, dunning1874 said:
Someone is certainly moving goalposts to suit an argument here.
Are you genuinely failing to grasp the extremely simple point that looking at the time period in which a player has lost form is the only pertinent sequence of games to look at when discussing a player's contribution while off form, so we're talking about February as the start point because that's when Muirhead lost form?
Well no, because if your comparison between the end product of Muirhead and assorted sand-dancers on the bench was based on objectively recording 'recent form', then you clearly need to drop games in February on a rolling basis - and update your poindexter database - to reflect the fact that those games are increasingly no longer recent at all. Instead, you finally admit that you just cherry-picked a start date that best fitted your argument and presented figures from that fixed starting point. Which is not objective and demonstrates nothing of value.
A page of tedious back and forth that could have been avoided, but there are enough questionable judgments as it is on here without having a fraudulent attempt at statistical analysis being used to support them.
-
4 hours ago, dunning1874 said:
This is how the passage of time works yes, what with February and March being more recent than January.
So you have been removing February results and updating your assessment on a regular basis then, what with the passage of April rendering the first half of February's results equally irrelevant as 'recent form' by your own definition?
Or did you simply form your argument first, looked for the precise size of goalposts that would best fit, and are now trying to pass it off as the second K-T boundary that Changed Everything?
Tough call tbh.
-
1 hour ago, dunning1874 said:
Because he was still playing well three months ago. He had not lost form in January, hence his form in January is irrelevant to a discussion about his contribution since he lost his form.
So 'recent form' consists solely of the period in which you think a player isn't performing; any sequence of games that goes against your thesis isn't 'recent' and so magically doesn't count against your case.
As I stated then, what you're providing here is an exercise in cherry-picking rather than credible analysis.
-
24 minutes ago, LargsTON said:
Well if we're 6 figures in the black I'd like to see Imries budget increased further allowing us to aim for a higher placed finish which would potentially offset any increase through prize money. Do we have details of the difference between the budget of this season and next?
We're only six figures in the black this season because we a) got a favourable League Cup draw to get out of the group stage, which allowed us to b) draw Rangers in the next round, pocket a windfall and also create a credible player budget. We then did well and got some fortune with the draw in progressing to the Scottish Cup QF too, but that wouldn't have happened without the first two conditions being in place.
It's entirely likely though that we'll get a complete stinker of a League Cup group next season that will leave us unlikely to progress unless we win the group outright against Premiership opposition. Which if we fail, then leaves us relying on a Scottish Cup run and money-spinner just to make ends meet. That's not sustainable in any way.
The fundamentals of the club's income hasn't substantially changed and until we develop the infrastructure to address that then we shouldn't be speculating to accumulate on the first team. There's nobody to write the IOU if it goes wrong and we shouldn't want someone to do that again anyway.
-
12 minutes ago, dunning1874 said:
When you're talking about a player's recent run of form and whether they could do with being dropped for it, picking a cut off of the last two months isn't arbitrary cherry picking: it would be stupid to include January and before because, as I am totally in agreement with, Muirhead was still playing very well in January as he had from the start of the season, and that's why he's earned a contract. Looking at the contribution from the start of February is pertinent to the discussion about how to respond to Muirhead's loss of form because that's the time in which he's gone off form.
The 'last two months' is quite clearly arbitrary. Why not the last three months? Who decreed that two months was the definition of recent form - other than it suiting the purpose of your cherry-picking exercise?
And in any case even by your own goalpost fixing exercise, we seem to have 'player on a terrible run of form who should definitely be dropped' on level pegging with 'guid young player - start him instead and/or award new contract too'.
I for one think that we should accept neither benchmark of performance as acceptable next season, which means upgrading on our existing options by providing serious competition instead.
He has played on the right several times throughout the season.
Fooling absolutely no-one: how many times has Muirhead started on the right hand side of our forward line this season? Be extremely specific.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, ChampTon said:
The likes of Garrity and Bearne getting the odd 15/30/50 minutes to impress are more bizarre than David Iron's 45 minute trial.
The only thing that's bizarre here is someone who was throwing his toys out the pram about the club not swooping for 'Frankie Deane' and a ringer off Tiktok questioning Sir David Irons' decision-making skill.
Next.
2 hours ago, dunning1874 said:Muirhead started on the right on Tuesday with Garrity on the left. A player who plays on the right is directly relevant to the conversation about Muirhead's place in the team when Muirhead is starting games on the right.
You were the one who claimed Muirhead is undroppable regardless of recent form because fringe players aren't doing enough. He is obviously getting a contract offer for his contribution over the season, but since the start of February he has 2 goals in 10 starts. In the same time period Garrity has 3 in 3 starts and 7 sub appearances.
That's 2 goals in 10 games versus 3 goals in 10 games. So even by your latest exercise in cherry-picked 'analysis' (RIP: The Lewis McGrattan Win Ratio, 2023-err, 2023) the difference in contribution is not substantial between Muirhead's worst spell of the season and Garrity's best. No serious manager is going to drop the former for the latter given what Muirhead has demonstrated to Imrie that he can deliver.
Your argument about Muirhead starting on the right in one game out of 40-odd this season is self-evidently ridiculous.
-
The only two players who play on the left hand side are Garrity who has been okay, nothing more than that, and McGrattan who categorically has not contributed more than Muirhead either since January, August or indeed any other period you're now setting your stats by. While Bearne's performances are likely overrated too, they're irrelevant because he doesn't even play on that side of the park.
I'm far from President of the Robbie Muirhead Travel Club, but the idea that our current wide options are an adequate replacement for his contribution to the team in this existing setup is demonstrable nonsense. The simple facts show that all the alternative options put together do not deliver as many goals, do not deliver a significant number of assists and also do not deliver any potential threat from set pieces. Which is likely why Imrie files all this mewling in the bin too.
We lack serious competition which might get the best out of Muirhead if, for argument's sake, we assume that he and Oakley stay. Unless we change system, then our forward options next season would look like this:
LW - Muirhead
CF - Oakley/Muirhead/Davies
RW - Davies/Bearne
The priority should quite clearly be adding a capable, left sided forward. Which involves giving a sincere, thanks for your efforts but cheerio card to our current two options there as well as Quitongo on the opposite side. That's the only way to step up to the next level within a budget, instead of this endless, clutching at straws exercise for players who simply haven't shown enough.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Chicken_Soup said:
There’s a lot I agree with regarding ruthlessness in squad building, but binning Garrity at the end of this season would be madness. He’s a young, low earner on a sharp upward trajectory whose strengths are not replicated anywhere in our squad and will be incredibly difficult to find externally, certainly not without significant cost. He’s already contributing goals and assists at championship level and with Mcgrattan presumably moving aside he should be challenged to move up the pecking order, not out the door.
He's 24 in July, which is by no means young in football terms and particularly at this level.
The choice is whether we can reliably expect further development into a reliable Championship player at that stage in Garrity's career, or whether a better bet is coming through the youth cohort that is a good 7-8 years younger.
And while Garrity will likely be a relatively low earner, he's still a professional footballer entering the peak stage of his career. If the combined wages of McGrattan and Garrity can be used to get a real left sided attacker, then we should do that instead.
5 hours ago, DumfriesTon said:And I actually think the persistence of giving Crawford and Muirhead 90 minutes every week has probably hampered them. Crawford's look knackered for months.
I'm sure the likes of McGrattan and Bearne could play that role behind Oakley or out wide to replace Muirhead from time to time. My point is that they (Crawford & Muirhead) shouldn't be undroppable and the replacements for them are not as bad as you make out.
Be serious. McGrattan and Bearne are not even remotely equipped to do the Crawford role pressing from the front. One because it's the complete opposite of his own game, the other because he's simply multiple levels below Crawford in terms of ability and tactical awareness.
It's funny btw to see this sudden desire to play Bearne on the left and in the middle of the park; no doubt you'd be berating the manager for shamefully playing the forum's latest great white hope out of position, if he actually tried that demented idea.
Crawford and Muirhead have been de facto undroppable this season because the fringe players in the squad haven't been good enough to step up on their place. That's why we are where we are in the league and that's what needs to be ruthlessly addressed this summer.
-
19 minutes ago, DumfriesTon said:
Perhaps I mean in comparison to other players. Crawford and Muirhead haven't really done much since January but are the first names on the team sheet and undroppable. Likes of Bearne, as one example, has a MOTM against QP, off game v Airdrie (like everybody else) yet is the only attacking player dropped for Ayr and doesn't even come on off the bench, yet Muirhead gets 90 minutes and Crawford moreorless the same.
Bearne plays a completely different position to Crawford though. Who, specifically, was available to replace Crawford in the same role for the team? Which of our left sided players has demonstrated the number of goal contributions that Muirhead has produced this season - including multiple from set pieces? The reason why Imrie 'persists' with those two players is perfectly obvious - they offer abilities that cannot be replaced by the current squad, because the alternative options are simply not good enough.
-
1
-
1
-
-
57 minutes ago, DumfriesTon said:
The problem with Crawford, Blues and Muirhead is Imrie's loyalty to them. No matter how ineffective they are on the pitch, they're never dropped and rarely subbed. A spot on the bench for them would probably do them good, especially Crawford who does some amount of running.
Dropped and subbed for whom though? In the cases of Muirhead and Crawford, the 'replacements' for their role in the current squad are entirely different types of players, who also haven't shown that they have what it takes to deliver on a reliable basis. It's a vicious cycle but the problem does not rest with those players or the manager persisting with them - it's the sub-par squad options that needs to be addressed if we are to progress. A bit of healthy competition wouldn't go amiss either.
-
29 minutes ago, SpoonTon said:
Power's clearly our technically most talented midfield player. He came off the bench the other night and player a cross field pass that our other players just aren't capable of. Some of the situations he can get himself out of is impressive. But over the season he's been good for 60-70 minutes a week when fully fit or when coming off the bench - and it's not really enough for us. He gets caught in the ball and over does things, and has cost us several goals. He started about 9 games of our unbeaten run, and was outstanding in some of those matches. But generally, over the course of the season, I don't think he's done enough to warrant another year.
I think Power has done about enough based on this season's performances, but the problem is that there's absolutely no guarantee we'll get the same level next season. If there are options out there with fewer miles under their belt then I'd be sincerely thanking him and Gillespie for their efforts but moving on. We cannot afford another Neil McFarlane figure.
Blues' versatility merits a position in the squad and the application he has put in at various roles this season has been crucial. He shouldn't be in our first choice midfield though so it depends on budget/wage expectations.
-
I wouldn't say Crawford has struggled for a large part of the season, but his form dropped at the same time as Muirhead without anywhere near the same scrutiny. Look at the roles they're expected to do (and in Muirhead's case, his natural fitness/playing style) and for me it's an issue of overuse because our alternative options have been crap.
Garrity has already surprised my expectations simply by making it to the end of the season and moving himself up the pecking order, but what is his actual role going to be at Championship level on a regular basis? With Davies coming in and Bearne signed up, I'd release both McGrattan and Garrity (and others) to try and add a genuinely credible left-sided option instead of two IMO capable League One level players.
If we want someone to come off the bench and offer something different, we have a youth cohort coming through that have far more time on their side to benefit from that experience.
-
5 hours ago, AyrshireTon said:
Because at that point we were looking the better side, albeit we’d left it late. A winner was a possibility in a game where we ought to have been behind, yet rather that go for it, Mullen was told to hold onto it.
Conceding an Ayr winner was also a possibility and your own judgment of the game confirms which one was more likely.
-
On 4/9/2024 at 5:11 AM, irnbru said:
Aye, agreed. We can do much better than him.
How did our recruitment deal with the exact same position last summer? Was Scottish football awash with highly effective full backs, just desperate to join us?
While I'd certainly be looking to upgrade on French (a largely competent Championship player, but no more based on this season at least) we should also recognise that we can and indeed often do end up with far worse in that position. It's a position we need to upgrade if we are serious about progressing to the next level and making our attacking play less one dimensional, but the same applies to several teams in the division who will be fighting over the same player or two.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, AyrshireTon said:
Agree - without Mullen we'd have lost that.
Bit disappointed to hear Mullen being told to slow down in the final moments rather than getting to his feet and get the ball up the park.
Why were you disappointed with the latter, given your own pessimistic assessment of the balance of the game?
Perhaps if we hadn't coughed up stupid defeat after stupid defeat from similar scenarios in recent weeks, then a draw at Ayr would be consolidating a play-off spot rather than just our current league status (both against 9th and dropping further down the table).
-
- Popular Post
48 minutes ago, LargsTON said:Must admit I don't recall O'Connor having any bad games.
To take just one game - the first competitive game of the season - O'Connor got turned by a routine punt up the park by Ross County in the closing stages to give Simon Murray an easy finish. That cost us that game and has been the story of his season.
I'm not calling for him to be released but he simply hasn't progressed into a reliable Championship centre back yet. Like many others on the fringes of our first team, they should be looking to themselves for answers about their game time or lack of it. Imrie's not deliberately picking a shite team to lose games.
-
3
-
21 hours ago, Madton said:
That was a tough watch.
Airdrie simply the better team and will no doubt clinch 4th.
French and Power were the standout pish performers but most were poor. O'connor must be raging not being in the team.
The only person he should be raging about is himself though. O'Connor has been unreliable at centre back since day 1 of the season, which is why he hasn't managed to nail down a starting spot ahead of a centre back playing in the Lowland League last season. Like too many others in the squad, O'Connor simply hasn't progressed from last season and that's why we are were we are right now.
O'Connor is young enough and versatile enough to persist with (Broadfoot should obviously leave) but he hasn't earned a starting spot for a credible play-off team at this level. We need serious competition that will either get the best out of him and Baird, or relegate him to an auxiliary right back or cover role.
I wasn't at yesterday's game so can't comment on performances. I'll instead focus on results. While three points from four games against Inverness, Airdrie, Queens Park and Dunfermline is poor enough, our record of three defeats and one win is actually worse.
These were all do not lose six-pointers. If we had shitfested three draws and a defeat and QP, the damage would be salvageable. Instead we've contrived to directly place Dunfermline above us, give Airdrie a near unassailable cushion and revive Inverness' survival hopes all at the same time. For the first time under Imrie's tenure, the game management shown by his team has been amateur.
The closest parallel for me is with the 2011-12 campaign, which had a couple of good runs of form only to fizzle out in a similarly risible manner. While we won't have anywhere near the same budget as Moore had over the summer of 2012, the purpose of action should be the same. We don't just need to 'build a squad' by adding a few more bodies - the existing squad needs a ruthless purge and upgrades pursued across the board. A centre back, two full backs, 1-2 central midfielders and a wide player are likely needed - that means that an equivalent number of players should also be heading out the door, otherwise we can't afford real upgrades. That's the hard reality we need to face, instead of making excuses about lack of game time or dreaming up Stephen Stirling levels of player development while sitting on the bench.
-
1 hour ago, Cet Homme Charmant said:
Indeed, in the last home game of the now infamous League 1 season when we completely imploded and chucked away a massive (15 point?) lead, we played Stenhousemuir when we were still in with a shout of at least 2nd placed promotion, and they humped us (5-2?), despite being already relegated weeks earlier. I had booked the trip over for the game months earlier when to all intents and purposes it was going to be presentation of the League trophy. D'oh!
I don't have a lot of luck with making trips over for matches, the last one was the ICT game that was postponed in October despite it being a beautiful autumn day that was perfect for football.
A result which had nothing to do with Stenhousemuir at all and everything to do with the Beirut port disaster style event unfolding at Cappielow.
-
3 hours ago, The Bewilderedbeast said:
Playing an already relegated team can often go tits up. They already know their fate and any nerves have gone and they can play with freedom.
But much, much more often, they do no such thing and get sworded by the credible outfit that actually has something to play for.
They're not going to turn into the Harlem Globetrotters once their return to the seaside leagues is confirmed.
-
13 hours ago, ChampTon said:
I would not be adverse to seeing Muirhead off at the end of the season. He may be a gifted player but with the style we play he is carried more often than not. I doubt many of his goals have come from open play (happy to be proved wrong).
Good to see Broadfoot and Crawford too bring his arms down. Proper professionals the both of them. Broadfoot, even at his age, is deserving of another year for us, but ideally I'd like to see us have at least 4 CBs next season.
Do goals that come from 'open play' count double or something? How many goals and assists have our rotating parade of wingers chipped in with in Oakley's two spells of absence? From open or closed play?
The same question can be raised about the midfield to a lesser degree too btw. Imrie's excellent coaching and organisation almost always keeps us in matches, but goals change games and the objective fact is that we have had two very good sources of those this season. And hee-haw else.
Which is why Imrie will unquestionably be offering Muirhead a new deal in the summer. I'm not convinced that he can replicate this season's return, but he's clearly merited a chance to do so.
Bonus irony for raising Crawford as if he hasn't encountered the exact same drop-off in form, at the exact same time of the season and with a likely equivalent, very high number of minutes played.
12 hours ago, RossMcC1874 said:The only reason Muirhead gets stick is because of his attitude and sometimes lack of commitment not chasing, not pressing and looking genuinely uninterested.
Of course he has the ability no one has ever questioned that and for a large part of this season and last season he has been excellent but he shouldn't be immune from criticism.
The ability was absolutely being doubted - and quite rightly so - until Imrie came in the door. Imrie revived Muirhead's career but would Imrie have survived the start of this season without Muirhead returning the favour in Oakley's absence? I think we'd be in a very different situation now if that didn't happen.
The drop-off in pressing has not been down to one individual, it has declined significantly since injuries and general fatigue hampered the team. If Wilson is nearing contention then I wouldn't be surprised to see it return in the near future. These streaks have been a repeating pattern under Imrie and are largely a product of our tactics being limited by our lack of credible squad depth.
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, LargsTON said:
Nobody appears to be more delicate than Muirhead, tbf.
We have full-grown adults suddenly clutching their pearls about the future of the community owned model because, err, a player's celebrated scoring a goal. So that doesn't really seem to be the case.
-
1
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
3 hours ago, Scott said:Noticed Muirhead’s celebration was a dig at the crowd yesterday… that along with Imrie’s comments would suggest he’s immune to criticism. One free-kick chucked in by Cal Ferrie doesn’t make up for the last 2 months performances from him.
What about the five months before that? If Muirhead hadn't carried us through Oakley's first spell of absence then we'd be 9th right now.
That some people have either very short or very selective memories is absolutely legitimate to be called out and I'm sure the delicate flowers in the Cowshed every week can put up with it. We can't have it both ways.
-
3
-
Wouldn't criticise individual stewards for this, but it's notable that when there was some Celtic supporting jakey openly smoking a joint and giving out continuous, dreadful patter* about wearing a hair band to some Dundee United player a few weeks ago, eagle-eyed enforcement of The Rules was nowhere to be seen. Given the regular reports of spitting from the other side of the Shed too, company policy seems to be that they will pick and choose their battles - i.e. against those not likely to cause them trouble.
*Probably the worst offence of the lot
-
2
-
2024/25 Squad and Transfers
in General Morton Chatter
Posted
This is precisely where you are wrong, because those two records are exactly the same thing to the manager of a professional football club. Players who make substitute appearances are expected to contribute just like starters. They're not thrown on to the park as a sympathy act. It doesn't matter whether you have 90 minutes or 25 minutes to deliver - the bottom line to Imrie or any other manager is the sum of a player's total contribution on the park to the team.
The explanation for why your beloved squad players are not starting is entirely straightforward then: they haven't actually contributed enough to dislodge Muirhead or indeed any other starters in the pecking order. Being a standout in one game against Queens' Park and then being a bag of turds against Airdrie the next week merely confirms the existing pecking order.
You believe that this is unfair and want their contribution to be weighted based on minutes off the bench, cherry-picked 'recent form' 'analysis', and a host of other mitigating circumstances, but the reality is that professional football isn't 'fair' in those terms and these excuses shouldn't and largely don't apply.