RicoS321

Why would he change it to a free kick though? Difficult one for the ref in fairness.

Waiting this out until halftime is high risk stuff. Duk is injured, take him off. Even if he recovers slightly, we still need to take one of the front two off, so just do it.

Yep. Difficult to say. I think the rule states that if the foul continues into the box then it's a pen. I couldn't tell whether the grab of his arm was in or if he dived in. Anyway, Stewart suspended is no bad thing.

Need a sub on. 4-4-1

Wouldn't have counted in the tennents sixes.

Pen for that? Weird.

What a hit from our dynamic young fullback. Pleased to see the same setup that started the Hun game too, that midfield two of Barron and Ramadani, with Clarkson ahead of them suits us. Richardson being replaced by anyone, or anything, only makes it stronger.

Personally, I think he's amazing. Always have.

I was going to say this on the Hun thread regarding why he didn't come on, but forgot. He picked up that injury against the Atlanta primary school team, which looked a sore one. I wonder if he only made the bench against the scum as an absolute last resort option. If he's tweaked something again, or isn't quite fit, then a family Christmas back home for a few days might not be the worst thing for him. His long term future is doubtful. He's just not quite got the pace to really cause teams problems and I don't see huge room for development in his overall game. He's an intelligent enough player that with a lot of work could turn out a half decent signing for someone when he reaches his mid twenties peak. I'd persevere with him for another year maybe and see how he goes. Or it could be that he was so offended by Shayden Morris getting on a football pitch that he's decided that the football is no longer the sport for him.

Just to clarify, I'm not supporting an extended stay, just suggesting he be allowed to stay until the summer when he can be let go at the end of his deal. Of course, I wouldn't care if he did leave in January, just not worth worrying about. I'm more concerned about shifting those on longer contracts, or guys like Ramirez that are out of favour and may be a bit more of a negative presence. Although Ramirez being there until his contract expires isn't the end of the world either.

McInnes was good at shifting on his own players that didn't work fairly quickly, it'll be interesting to see if Goodwin is of a similar nature. Given we paid fees for Richardson and Morris, it makes it less likely he can admit mistake and let them go, so perhaps both could go out on loan. Richardson's biggest issue is confidence. He's rabbit in headlights, he just panics. He's got great pace, but is so tentative going round a player, that he hasn't worked out how far in front he can kick it yet. Defensively, he just kicks or heads it wherever he's facing. Morris doesn't really have any redeeming qualities that I can see, just looks permanently below our level. We need to stop either player from being an option for the remainder of the season, so get them out the door. I think Roberts will be quietly sneaked out in this window or the next too. I'd like to see Ramirez moved on, and maybe even Watkins. High risk, perhaps, but even if one of the strikers got injured I could see Goodwin just changing formation ahead of starting either of the two. Right back will probably be seen as a way to perhaps allow us to play a back four at times, which I think Goodwin might like the option of (although I still see Stewart as a liability in that setup). If we can get Scales in this window, then we should. He's been decent and will get better with age. No point in risking looking elsewhere if we don't have to. Midfielder the priority as you say. Most importantly, we need to keep things ticking along and getting incremental improvement, whilst tidying up the dross. Kennedy probably deserves a stay of execution until summer.

Anyway, it's the fucking dead queen's fault for dying during the season. Couldn't have waited until England got papped out of the world cup?

The culling was required. Considine aside - and only because he was a known quantity - I wouldn't have kept any of them. Ramirez is the only one I think is being treated unfairly, and the fact he went home early last season suggests that there's more to it. I don't recognise the other parts of your post either, beyond the tactical stuff which I agree with (although the tactics didn't change against the Hun until the subs, just the application). The reality for me is that we have half decent players that are about the level required. Ramadani isn't better than baningime at hearts or baccus at st mirren for example. Each of the names you mentioned has some obvious talent, but some fairly obvious deficiencies which is why they're in our team. McRorie is being held back by his own lack of ability, Ramadani is very one dimensional, the others are decent, but not good enough to drag others like Richardson and Stewart through games against good opponents (they have dragged them through games against poorer opposition). They're playing to the level I'd expect. The problem with not having a carried forward balance of players is that there are no options when we're struggling. The alternative would have been to sign another 3-4 players, but it was always more sensible to wait until January to get a better idea of what the new signings brought. Goodwin is undoubtedly being forced into playing systems he doesn't want to because of personnel. Stewart requires a back three, Richardson too. Barron and Clarkson wanting to do similar roles, Ramadani wanting to sit on the defence too much and the front pairing both being good goalscorers but not great at tracking back. McInnes would have seen out the game against the Hun by bringing on an Anthony O'Connor or Dom Ball type to sit in front and do the agricultural work. We don't even have one of those. We certainly haven't got close to replacing Ferguson.

I don't agree. We went toe to toe with a good side for large parts of the game. They're a better side than us, with some very good players and you have to ride your luck a little to beat them. After we scored the first, we came out with intent in the second and looked the better team up until they made their changes. There are only a few ways to get results against a better side and it looked like we had found a way to play to our strengths without giving too much away in defence. Miovski and Duk were putting in the work and our midfield was coping from the point we scored. Moreover, there was a bit of confidence about us. It's not like we should be expecting to dominate them, there needs to be a realism that if we win there will be bodies on the line and a degree of holding on. They're not where they were under the Portuguese weirdo and we're not where we were under McInnes at that time. Goodwin got the balance right for the majority of the game and we did the best our (and their) personnel allow for. It'd be interesting to see possession stats up until the subs. I'm guessing it would have been around 60-40, which is not unreasonable.

Perfectly summed up. We moved from a 3-5-2 to a 5-4-1. That's such a difficult transition to make successfully during a game. The setup against the Tims worked for so long because it was for the entire 90 minutes. We needed to make changes, Clarkson was injured and Miovski was a luxury we couldn't afford, and we needed to respond to the four subs they had made and the fact they were throwing players forward - it's too simplistic to say that we should have just kept attacking because that's our best attribute, as if the opposition don't exist or have any say in that. I hate the new subs rules to be honest, a triple sub has gone from being an absolutely ludicrous thing to do, to a manager feeling like they need to make changes because they've got them available. It genuinely looked like Goodwin had seen the quadruple sub they made and thought he'd better do something similar, rather than a thought through process. I had just finished saying to my mate that these triple+ substitutes are a sign of a clueless manager unsure of what to do next when Goodwin decided that what should have been minor tinkering of personnel was going to be a complete overhaul and change of strategy. The changes were extreme. We might not have held on for victory had we kept with a similar strategy but with different personnel, but there's a strong chance we wouldn't have lost. He's got a difficult job to do, with serious personnel issues in key areas, I'm not sure why he has to make it so much harder for himself.

I think that's extremely harsh. Barron was very good against the Tims until he switched off for a second, and he played well for long periods last night. When other people switch off, Barron is the one who comes across to cover almost every single time. When Barron makes an error, nobody is mopping up. Hayes was skinned by Kent for his shot last night and Barron was the one attempting to come across to block, when arguably Ramadani should have been better placed. Wright made a massive difference to their attack when he came on, his movement is extremely good (far more so than his end product), and we were being dragged left to right by him and Kent. We lost our shape completely. Barron was constantly having to look over his shoulder, because McRorie was having to mark Richardson to make sure he didn't provide them with an assist. The subs were poor last night, but it wouldn't be fair to suggest that we could have just continued playing the same way. It seems that fans and pundits ignore the effect of one team on the other. They made tactical changes and threw players forward. It's not a simple case of saying that we sat in, they pushed us back too. If we'd kept Duk on, or took on Vinny or Duncan instead of Morris we could have held them higher up the park in my opinion. However, if we'd had a usable defensive midfielder or another defender on the bench, sitting in would also have likely worked. We have real personnel problems. There's only so long you can get away with that and it's a shame that these two fixtures came in quick succession before the window. We need a couple of signings before the cup game to give us a chance.

In fairness, Watkins has played most of his games for the dons as a number nine. He's more than capable of leading the line in a game like this, but he needs at least one player close to him. I'd have kept Duk on and just played Watkins deeper, whilst firing Morris into the north sea. Hayes was clearly told to go on and sit deep, as he was virtually on top of McKenzie and Morris was just Morris. I really don't get it either. Although we should still have held on.

Just back. Agree with the above, Watkins was fine. It was almost like Goodwin saw them making four subs, so thought he'd better do a few too. Watkins and Hayes, absolutely fine. Keep Duk high up the pitch, and have Watkins deeper getting in people's faces. Morris is a honking footballer, but he also doesn't have the experience to do the intelligent thing. At least Hayes bought us a couple of fouls. However, it wasn't just the subs, we utterly shat the bed in a way I've never seen before. We panicked and then panicked again and completely lost our shape and plan. Ramadani was zonally marking, whilst Hayes and Coulson/McKenzie were attempting to man mark. Every time they went out wide they had an extra man. It was nothing like the organised approach we saw at the weekend and it's exceptionally difficult to change into that mode during the game, which it seems like we attempted. Stewart, and Goodwin, were shouting for the team to push up the park throughout that second half until about the 85th minute, when we suddenly stopped and sat in. We looked completely in control playing high(ish), and they were regularly passing out of play. Richardson is really bad. I've never seen a player with such low confidence. In the first half he didn't have the confidence to beat his man. In the second half he didn't have the confidence to deal with the ball in front of goal, just completely panicked. It isn't just that though, he doesn't put in the work. He tanked up the line in the second half and then just strolled back about 20 yards behind his man. You'd never have seen Logan, for example, be that negligent. Of you're shite at football (foster, say) then you at least have to use the athletic gifts you've been endowed with. It's like he's not fit.

Kennedy gets in through the "he's not Jayden Richardson" route. It's one of his best qualities. You could be right about Miovski. It really is no slight on the player either. I'm hoping that Goodwin could see that there was a balance to be struck between being ultra conservative and gung ho, and that it's possible to be more attacking when playing only one striker versus two, if the ball spends more time higher up the pitch as a result. I think there was enough on display on Saturday for Goodwin to get the message and I think it'd be easy to explain to Miovski why he was dropped as part of a tactical decision. In reality, playing him could have a greater adverse effect than not. If he plays like he did on Saturday (through little fault of his own), it could cause his head to go down and he might start to doubt himself.

Didn't realise that Scales wasn't here for the entire season. If there's no hope of getting him beyond the summer, then maybe best to look elsewhere in this window and let him go back. A good defender with a good left foot, but quite replaceable. There's a young lad doing quite well for St Johnstone this season who could be worth trying to snap up on a long term deal.

Looking forward to it. I think we'll see a different approach and we might give them a game. As I mentioned on the Tim thread, the midfield three is key to this, and I'd be dropping Clarkson on that basis. I don't think he offers enough in the press and if we're playing a rigid three like at the weekend then his forward-going abilities are largely nullified. I thought Barron was decent at the weekend (despite his error) and should retain his place ahead of Clarkson. Plagiarising Panda's back central three, but switching Scales and Stewart due to Stewart's lack of pace, I'd go: ------------------Roos------------------ -----Scales---Stewart---McKenzie---- Kennedy----Barron----Ramadani--Coulson -------------McRorie---Hayes------------- ---------------------Duk------------------- Is 3-4-2-1 a formation? It is now.

I thought the times when Kennedy was caught out were when they had a man over and he didn't know what to do. That never happened in the second, and he did alright. Terrible going forward, of course, but that wasn't what he was asked to do. I actually agree that right back might be McRorie's best position (I even suggested it at the start of the season). All things being equal, that should be where he plays regularly and we prioritise midfield and centre back in January. I do agree that he can solve a headache in there. However, for Tuesday, we have an even bigger headache in our midfield, which can't otherwise be solved in my opinion. Ramadani causes a problem for us, because he only seems to be able to play deep. Neither of the other two compliment that, and we end up with large gaps. Goodwin recognised this and that's why he played the rigid and disciplined three in a line, where they were given a few simple instructions and told to stick to them. I thought our best midfield performance of the season came when Barron and Ramadani played in a two against Livingston (second half). That worked well, but they'd need extra support against the Hun. McRorie is a terrible passer, but he gets in people's faces and can drive with the ball. A controversial option would be to play him in front of Barron and Ramadani, right on top of whoever they choose to sit deep (Jack I'm assuming) and battle for the balls off the front one. That keeps him out of the way of the other midfielders and also takes the game to them in a way that Clarkson won't do (he'll keep dropping deep and offer little in the press).

I wouldn't have McRorie near right wing back. Kennedy did a very good job against Jota in what was effectively a back five. Good shout otherwise though, but if we're moving McRorie, it should be into midfield to add a bit of strength. That's the area where we really struggled as we were forced into playing a rigid three due to their limitations (as a three, not individually). Either drop Clarkson or play him higher up the park in place of one of the strikers (I'd rather see a more attacking player).

I suppose it depends. If it was a hypothetical one signing window, I'd go for a midfielder. I don't see how replacing right back solves the problems we had today for instance (Kennedy was good defensively today). A midfielder would open up many different options in terms of our overall setup. The only argument you could make is that a very good right back (Gurr, Hernandez for example) would allow a back four, but I'd have to be convinced that Stewart was good enough to have defenders running past him. We'd have to get a defender that was very capable of getting up and down, and most in our budget sacrifice one capability for the other. Even assuming that, you'd still be looking at McRorie in midfield in most games (given he's unlikely to be dropped), which is dubious in my opinion. Fortunately, it shouldn't be beyond us to get both a right back and a midfielder. Hopefully Goodwin knows this.

Just back. That was certainly the most organised I've seen us this season! An almost masterclass in discipline, until the 80th minute. As a tactical example, it was intriguing (almost impressive), but it was exhausting watching us give total possession to the opposition. Goodwin will have approached this as the first of two games rather than just an individual one, which is understandable, if a little grating. If we'd got a tanking today, the fans would have been seriously restless against the second scum. We can now be a bit more ambitious against the Hun without necessarily going full kamikaze like the last game against them. I don't envy Goodwin, there's very few ways in which the current squad can be arranged into a winning side against a better team. Even against weaker opposition, the tactic of putting a very attacking side on the park has led to it being flip of a coin at times between winning by three or losing. The last Hun game proved the obvious, that we can't simply play the same way. Unfortunately, it's getting that middle ground that we're really struggling to identify. The midfield is the weak point. Ramadani is a sitting midfielder who can't really be deployed to man mark or get up and down and fly into tackles, and Barron and Clarkson are good at doing the same thing as one another. McRorie would help, I think, but we have no other option in a back three, and we're weak in a four. I can't think of any good choice, and it's a shame to hear pundits on the radio being correctly critical, but without putting forward alternatives. Hopefully we've learned that Miovski and Duk isn't an option in this type of game. We need that link between what will often be a deep midfield and a forward player. They were both poor today, but I think it's easier to nullify Miovski than Duk, so I'd go for him. Watkins, Hayes or Duncan should take his place. McKenzie did really well today, and Coulson switched off once but was probably his best defensive performance too. As a unit it was incredibly disciplined and the moment where Barron switched off was probably inevitable and you just have to hope they don't score as they did.