Dundee Utd vs Morton

[Madton]

"Over 30s and young boys with nothing in between". It's not particularly true, nor is it anybody else's fault. He keeps talking about the squad he has as if it's some sort of extraneous factor..

Aye, absolutely ridiculous comment. 11 of the squad are between 22 and 30.

 

Hopkin is quickly turning into the ginger Duff!

[TopCat]

No, a back three with wing-backs. When one of those goes forward, the other stays.

 

This is extremely basic stuff tbh.

 

 

Erm no you quite clearly don't, given that Sir David Irons successfully used that formation with Peter Weatherson and Wake as our main forwards. There is no need for constant pressing from the front when you have three centre backs and three central midfielders swamping the space in the key areas.

 

 

That's just utter nonsense and if yet another 6-0 shoeing among 57,000 goals shipped this season doesn't snap that thought out of you then you're a lost cause.

A back 5 with 4 bodies staying back is a deep lying defence chief. It's also exactly what JJ was trying to do last season. It's a perfectly valid system but we dont have the players to pull it off.

 

2008-era Weatherson and Wake were competent Championship strikers, supported by an otherwise attacking, long ball team. We also had superior players in other areas of the pitch during Irons' glorious march to 6th place. The lack of pace in that team was a major deficiency. Harking back to a load of mediocrities from 15+ years ago to make your point is embarrassing stuff.

[EanieMeany]

Quite a remarkable interview with Peter Grant in today's paper, including his assertion that "it's hard to put a finger" on how Saturday's result came about. Where to even start with that? He gets in an early "we go again" (surely the worst cliche in football) and it gets no more sensible from there, I'm sure it's all valid about some team or other but in relation to Morton it's a load of rubbish.

[Hej]

Quite a remarkable interview with Peter Grant in today's paper, including his assertion that "it's hard to put a finger" on how Saturday's result came about. Where to even start with that? He gets in a "we go again" (surely the worst cliche in football) and it gets no more sensible from there, I'm sure it's all valid about some team or other but in relation to Morton it's a load of rubbish.

 

Feel sorry for the editor that had to cut through the 634 "obviously"'s.

 

https://twitter.com/BBCSportScot/status/1175464065847701505

[EanieMeany]

 

Feel sorry for the editor that had to cut through the 634 "obviously"'s.

 

https://twitter.com/BBCSportScot/status/1175464065847701505

 

 As it happens, I think he seems like a decent guy to have about the place and could be good player for us, but fuckin hell...saying "it's hard to know what went wrong" when you've repeatedly failed to kick a football in a competent manner is a brass neck and a half.

[vikingTON]

A back 5 with 4 bodies staying back is a deep lying defence chief. It's also exactly what JJ was trying to do last season. It's a perfectly valid system but we dont have the players to pull it off.

 

 

^^^ idiot found

 

A 'deep lying defence' is created solely by its position on the pitch, not the number of players in it. It's just as possible (or likely to happen) with a back four as with a back three. A 3-5-2 with the defenders playing at, for example, the 35 yard line is not in any universe a 'deep lying defence'.

 

You seem to have taken your entire 'understanding' 'philosophy' of the game from Gary Caldwell, as it bears no relation to the facts whatsoever.

 

2008-era Weatherson and Wake were competent Championship strikers, supported by an otherwise attacking, long ball team. We also had superior players in other areas of the pitch during Irons' glorious march to 6th place.

 

 

 

And yet you claimed two minutes ago that you need two forwards pressing from the front as an essential part of making such a system work. The only pressing Peter Weatherson did in his career was getting to the bar in Text for last orders. That didn't matter because a ruthlessly pragmatic manager built his team in mind of this fact rather than sticking to your mate Gary's rubbish 'philosophy'. 

 

So in this case, your ridiculous notion of how football works is undone by recent history combined with facts, logic and reason. That's a wee shame for you. 

 

Harking back to a load of mediocrities from 15+ years ago to make your point

 

 

There are other excellent examples of managers changing their system to great effect. This time three years ago a certain manager named Antonio Conte switch from a back four to a back three after a shoeing away from home, as he quickly recognised that this was the best way to stop shipping a stupid number of goals in every other game. He used his great coaching skills - something that everyone from the chief executive down has not stopped banging on about at Cappielow recently - to ensure that players understood the new system and their different roles within it. 

 

The rest is history: Conte's Chelsea took 77 points from their following thirty games to wrap up the league title at a canter. That is the effect that straightforward change in shape tied with competent coaching can have on a team. As opposed to the Jim McInally-esque approach of 'throw our seventeenth variation of a back four at the wall and hope it doesn't fuck up again' which is not currently working out well for anyone involved. 

 

is embarrassing stuff.

 

 

No, what's embarrassing is that your entire argument got dismantled piece by piece with so little effort on the part of yours truly. 

 

Thanks for playing anyway champ. 

[SpoonTon]

Irons hardly ever started Wake and Weatherson together. It worked on a couple of occasions, but wasn't a partnership he seemed that keen on.

[TopCat]

Irons hardly ever started Wake and Weatherson together. It worked on a couple of occasions, but wasn't a partnership he seemed that keen on.

This. We also had Grady and Russell in that squad who played up front. 6th place with the budget we had was ultimately a failure, in keeping with Irons' managerial career.

[TopCat]

^^^ idiot found

 

A 'deep lying defence' is created solely by its position on the pitch, not the number of players in it. It's just as possible (or likely to happen) with a back four as with a back three. A 3-5-2 with the defenders playing at, for example, the 35 yard line is not in any universe a 'deep lying defence'.

 

You seem to have taken your entire 'understanding' 'philosophy' of the game from Gary Caldwell, as it bears no relation to the facts whatsoever.

 

 

And yet you claimed two minutes ago that you need two forwards pressing from the front as an essential part of making such a system work. The only pressing Peter Weatherson did in his career was getting to the bar in Text for last orders. That didn't matter because a ruthlessly pragmatic manager built his team in mind of this fact rather than sticking to your mate Gary's rubbish 'philosophy'.

 

So in this case, your ridiculous notion of how football works is undone by recent history combined with facts, logic and reason. That's a wee shame for you.

 

 

There are other excellent examples of managers changing their system to great effect. This time three years ago a certain manager named Antonio Conte switch from a back four to a back three after a shoeing away from home, as he quickly recognised that this was the best way to stop shipping a stupid number of goals in every other game. He used his great coaching skills - something that everyone from the chief executive down has not stopped banging on about at Cappielow recently - to ensure that players understood the new system and their different roles within it.

 

The rest is history: Conte's Chelsea took 77 points from their following thirty games to wrap up the league title at a canter. That is the effect that straightforward change in shape tied with competent coaching can have on a team. As opposed to the Jim McInally-esque approach of 'throw our seventeenth variation of a back four at the wall and hope it doesn't fuck up again' which is not currently working out well for anyone involved.

 

 

No, what's embarrassing is that your entire argument got dismantled piece by piece with so little effort on the part of yours truly.

 

Thanks for playing anyway champ.

Absolutely amazing to see how rattled someone can get over a manager from 15 years ago. Irons had a big budget and good players. His system didn't work and he failed, let it go. Your references to Conte - who had a large squad of tactically disciplined, exceptional players to choose from - are ridiculous.

[capitanus]

Aye, absolutely ridiculous comment. 11 of the squad are between 22 and 30.

 

Hopkin is quickly turning into the ginger Duff!

The duff ginger more like.

 

Carol Decker couldn't be any worse.

[capitanus]

^^^ idiot found

 

A 'deep lying defence' is created solely by its position on the pitch, not the number of players in it. It's just as possible (or likely to happen) with a back four as with a back three. A 3-5-2 with the defenders playing at, for example, the 35 yard line is not in any universe a 'deep lying defence'.

 

You seem to have taken your entire 'understanding' 'philosophy' of the game from Gary Caldwell, as it bears no relation to the facts whatsoever.

 

 

And yet you claimed two minutes ago that you need two forwards pressing from the front as an essential part of making such a system work. The only pressing Peter Weatherson did in his career was getting to the bar in Text for last orders. That didn't matter because a ruthlessly pragmatic manager built his team in mind of this fact rather than sticking to your mate Gary's rubbish 'philosophy'.

 

So in this case, your ridiculous notion of how football works is undone by recent history combined with facts, logic and reason. That's a wee shame for you.

 

 

There are other excellent examples of managers changing their system to great effect. This time three years ago a certain manager named Antonio Conte switch from a back four to a back three after a shoeing away from home, as he quickly recognised that this was the best way to stop shipping a stupid number of goals in every other game. He used his great coaching skills - something that everyone from the chief executive down has not stopped banging on about at Cappielow recently - to ensure that players understood the new system and their different roles within it.

 

The rest is history: Conte's Chelsea took 77 points from their following thirty games to wrap up the league title at a canter. That is the effect that straightforward change in shape tied with competent coaching can have on a team. As opposed to the Jim McInally-esque approach of 'throw our seventeenth variation of a back four at the wall and hope it doesn't fuck up again' which is not currently working out well for anyone involved.

 

 

No, what's embarrassing is that your entire argument got dismantled piece by piece with so little effort on the part of yours truly.

 

Thanks for playing anyway champ.

Ysee it's posts like this that make me love this messageboard so much.

 

No other Morton supporters forum can boast a mewling mess getting randomly savaged by an angry young fanboy with the same IQ as Co. Donegal.

 

Still the best Morton forum out there by far, despite recent imitations, thanks for playing champ

[vikingTON]

Absolutely amazing to see how rattled someone can get over a manager from 15 years ago. Irons had a big budget and good players. His system didn't work and he failed,

 

It quite clearly didn't, given that he avoided relegation and then achieved the targets set for him in his full season in the job. If you want to see a system that is actually failing then look no further than the current one that has shipped fully 35 goals before the end of September: a record that makes Irons' tenure look like Sacchi's days at Milan by comparison. 

 

 let it go.

 

Your mewling about big, bad Irons and the galactico budget that he definitely had suggests that you're the one with serious closure issues champ. I am, as ever, focusing on the facts. That you don't happen to like those facts is just tough. 

 

Your references to Conte - who had a large squad of tactically disciplined, exceptional players to choose from - are ridiculous.

 

 

Yes, who could forget the 'tactically disciplined' and 'exceptional' players in that squad like, erm, David Luiz - a complete liability in a back four who was transformed only by that change of shape. Or Victor Moses, a bit-part jobber winger who was converted through good coaching into one of the best right wing-backs in Europe over the course of that season.

 

That example in fact underlines the point that a good coach selecting the correct system and doing the hard work on the training ground can get far more than the sum of a squad's parts. We're not achieving that right now, so it's time for the (club's self-declared) 'best manager in the division' to show his worth instead of trading in as many crap excuses as you've peddled on here. 

. 

[capitanus]

Alloa beat Dundee United tonight.

 

For any Morton players reading this - hang your heads in shame, you shite bunch of losers.

[EanieMeany]

The only managers in my lifetime remotely worth pining over or in any way thinking things could have worked out a lot better in other circumstances are Ian McCall and Billy Stark.