Tims vs Dons

[manc_don]

Can see us setting up formation wise pretty similar to PAOK, albeit, i'd expect Miovski and possibly Polvara to start? Don't want to see the Barron / Clarkson combo being tried again, it doesn't work. Playing two strikers will probably leave us short in the middle of the park, which is where we need numbers.

Not ideal playing them after their European pumping, as they'll likely want to come out firing, but they usually play like that against us anyway. If we can nullify them for a while and not concede some of the daft goals we've been conceding, then we might be able to grab something from this.

Out
Bed
Bed
Bed
3-0, no dons scorer

[Panda]

1 hour ago, manc_don said:

 Don't want to see the Barron / Clarkson combo being tried again, it doesn't work.

They're two of our best players, we can't just bench one every week, we have to find a way to accommodate them.

I'd play Clarkson in the role that Duncan occupied v PAOK. 

It's going to be a bit of trial and error, but they both add something to the team, and as well as Polvara has dove this season when he's played, both of them are better players than him.

[manc_don]

5 hours ago, Panda said:

They're two of our best players, we can't just bench one every week, we have to find a way to accommodate them.

I'd play Clarkson in the role that Duncan occupied v PAOK. 

It's going to be a bit of trial and error, but they both add something to the team, and as well as Polvara has dove this season when he's played, both of them are better players than him.

I’m not doubting they’re better than polvara, but it doesn’t seem to work when they play together. So if that means we need to rotate a bit more then so be it.

[Jute]

Agree with this being same formation being same as mid week. Player wise would expect Clarkson to come in for Duncan and Miovski for Duk. 
 

Not ideal playing them after their thumping off Atletico as they will be fired up to put on a show for their fans. 
 

oot fuck paying £33 for a restricted view

flat

Tv

flat

3-1 Miovski with dons goal. 

 

[RicoS321]

6 hours ago, Panda said:

They're two of our best players, we can't just bench one every week, we have to find a way to accommodate them.

I'd play Clarkson in the role that Duncan occupied v PAOK. 

That's clearly ridiculous though, in a team sport. You don't just throw all your best players on and hope that it works. We've been trying to accommodate players all season instead of playing our best eleven as a team. Duncan wasn't amazing last night, but he occupied a position and held that position, just like Polvara did against Hibs. The only way you accommodate Clarkson and Barron (that I've seen working) is in a 4-2-3-1, with Barron and Shinnie sitting and Clarkson in behind Miovski. However, that comes at the expense of McGrath, which none of us would likely go for at present, and it's also not a formation to be playing against a good team away. What happens otherwise was perfectly illustrated in the Hibs game (and multiple times when Goodwin tried to play Barron out of position). Clarkson played out wide, tiring himself out and having zero impact on the game, dropping deep and getting in Barron's way unsettling the shape of the entire midfield in an attempt to get involved and do what he does best. As soon as we switched it, the balance was regained and Clarkson suddenly finds his passing ability and ball retention, bringing Shinnie to life at the same time (who was also getting absolutely knackered chasing the game). When Clarkson or Barron are out of position, they lose all the qualities that make them the players they are. By playing Clarkson out wide right, you're not actually getting Clarkson, you're getting a significantly worse player - one who doesn't bring the discipline required to the role (and nor should he). Luckily he can interchange with both Barron and McGrath (depending on McGrath's role) and all three are going to get plenty of minutes between them.

It's weird, we always seem to want a better squad, but then when we get that we also want our best players playing every single week rather than rotate. I feel sorry for Robson, as a new coach, it's something we haven't had in such a blatant manner in such an important position before (see Duk and Miovski too). I think the reason that we didn't see Clarkson last night was specifically for that rotation purpose, and we'll see Barron drop to the bench. That's good management in my opinion.

Miovski will be an interesting one. He looked a little tentative when he came on last night. Keen to chase in a straight line, but didn't really challenge for anything or put his body into anything. I was half expecting to see him go down with a recurrence, but hopefully he was just being cautious. Duk did very well, especially his positional discipline (and goal, obviously), but Miovski is definitely the guy you want at the Tim dome.

[Panda]

8 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

That's clearly ridiculous though, in a team sport. You don't just throw all your best players on and hope that it works.

No-one suggested we do that. The suggestion was we find a system the r can include our best players.

Just deciding Barron and Clarkson can't play together after less than a handful of games in the same line-up would be more ridiculous.

8 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

[RicoS321]

39 minutes ago, Panda said:

No-one suggested we do that. The suggestion was we find a system the r can include our best players.

Just deciding Barron and Clarkson can't play together after less than a handful of games in the same line-up would be more ridiculous.

You did suggest that. You suggested playing Clarkson in the role Duncan played against PAOK. It amounts to the same thing. Trialling it again against the Tims would also be a bit silly. I'm completely failing to see what you think Clarkson adds to our team playing a disciplined right midfield role in a 5-4-1. In my opinion, it either nullifies his best attributes or leads to disarray as he drifts towards playing to his strengths by sacrificing position - that is clearly backed up by the Hibs game (as well as many under Goodwin in a slightly different setup). Against teams that aren't the Tims, we can have the luxury of attempting a 4-2-3-1, or even a 3-4-2-1 and accommodate Clarkson, Barron, Shinnie and McGrath in the latter. However, the 3-4-2-1 quickly changes to a disciplined 5-4-1 against better teams as we've seen, with Clarkson shifted right. In games like those, a fresh Clarkson (or Barron) coming off the bench is a much better option than him doing - at best - a marginally better job than Polvara or Duncan. Against Hibs, we ended up having to take Polvara off the bench. Not in order to get a performing side to be better, or for fresh legs, but to correct a very obvious imbalance. 

Clarkson and Barron are particular types of player, just like Ramadani was. I don't think there's anything wrong with identifying a formation that you think will work and then identifying a style/type of player that will suit that. I'm curious as to why you think Clarkson's style is suited to right midfield in a 5-4-1? 

[Panda]

4 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

You did suggest that. You suggested playing Clarkson in the role Duncan played against PAOK. It amounts to the same thing. Trialling it again against the Tims would also be a bit silly. I'm completely failing to see what you think Clarkson adds to our team playing a disciplined right midfield role in a 5-4-1. In my opinion, it either nullifies his best attributes or leads to disarray as he drifts towards playing to his strengths by sacrificing position - that is clearly backed up by the Hibs game (as well as many under Goodwin in a slightly different setup). Against teams that aren't the Tims, we can have the luxury of attempting a 4-2-3-1, or even a 3-4-2-1 and accommodate Clarkson, Barron, Shinnie and McGrath in the latter. However, the 3-4-2-1 quickly changes to a disciplined 5-4-1 against better teams as we've seen, with Clarkson shifted right. In games like those, a fresh Clarkson (or Barron) coming off the bench is a much better option than him doing - at best - a marginally better job than Polvara or Duncan. Against Hibs, we ended up having to take Polvara off the bench. Not in order to get a performing side to be better, or for fresh legs, but to correct a very obvious imbalance. 

Clarkson and Barron are particular types of player, just like Ramadani was. I don't think there's anything wrong with identifying a formation that you think will work and then identifying a style/type of player that will suit that. I'm curious as to why you think Clarkson's style is suited to right midfield in a 5-4-1? 

You might be right. There may not be a system that allows Clarkson and Barron to both co-exist.

However, how many games have the two actually started together? I'll tell you, one. There's been three other occasions this season where they've played the last half an hour together.

You can't come to a conclusion from such a small sample size that the two can't play in the same team.

The two individually haven't even played enough games to have nailed down a position that we know is best for them. It took about three years to do that for McCrorie.

To answer your other question, the 5-4-1 is actually fluid into a 5-2-2-1 which it was at times on Thursday. Duncan was receiving the ball in areas of the pitch where Clarkson would have made better use of the ball, one example would be his passing would release an overlapping full-back. Even if he's quiet in a game like Miovski was in the semi-final, he can produce something that Duncan can't. 

 

[RicoS321]

9 hours ago, Panda said:

You might be right. There may not be a system that allows Clarkson and Barron to both co-exist.

However, how many games have the two actually started together? I'll tell you, one. There's been three other occasions this season where they've played the last half an hour together.

You can't come to a conclusion from such a small sample size that the two can't play in the same team.

The two individually haven't even played enough games to have nailed down a position that we know is best for them. It took about three years to do that for McCrorie.

To answer your other question, the 5-4-1 is actually fluid into a 5-2-2-1 which it was at times on Thursday. Duncan was receiving the ball in areas of the pitch where Clarkson would have made better use of the ball, one example would be his passing would release an overlapping full-back. Even if he's quiet in a game like Miovski was in the semi-final, he can produce something that Duncan can't. 

 

There was no overlapping fullback apart from the goal! It was a very disciplined four. That's why I said that the 3-4-2-1 against poorer sides would be a good chance to play all of them together (poorer than the Tims and not at Hampden, and also sacrificing any remaining hope of Duk and Miovski as a two). Duncan was almost always receiving the ball high up the park with nobody in front of him, he was basically taking a touch and playing it backwards. By that point, against Hibs, Clarkson had already dropped deep, further congesting the midfield, as that's what he does. 

McRorie is in no way similar to Barron or Clarkson. Both clearly excel in one or more areas of the pitch. It's completely disingenuous to say that we don't know their best positions, we do (I do, and so does Robson and I expect most Dons fans). Barron is a central midfielder that moves the ball on quickly and has good vision. He can play sitting in a two or a one. He's a bit lost further up the pitch and struggles when asked to press high in a two with one behind. Clarkson is also a central midfielder that moves the ball on quickly and has great vision. He can play sitting in a two or a one (better than Barron in a one, where he excels, but requires two chasers in front). Going forward, he can also play in front of two sitting midfielders in either a one or two, but can't play the Shinnie/Ramadani role of chasing it high up the pitch with one in behind. He is better suited to being the one, whether deep or high up the pitch as his side to side movement is excellent and he thrives in the space. When playing as a two he tends to drift vertically, especially if starting further forward. He always wants to be on the ball rather than create the space for others to be on it (as does Barron, and we're better for it). These two guys aren't utility players like McRorie, and we shouldn't be trying to make them be either. They're far more talented than McRorie and should be cultivated in their best positions. Guys like Duncan and Polvara just need minutes on the football pitch at this level to develop their confidence and strength. That shouldn't be sacrificed either to accommodate a player out of position. 

The evidence for the above is seeing them play every week. There's a reason that they don't play together often (Goodwin tried it several times). We can see the way they play around other players being asked to play similar roles, it's ridiculous to suggest that they need to be played several times together to prove that their styles don't compliment. It's just an unnecessary experiment. Neither brings anything to the other's game. The 3-4-2-1 is certainly worth a try against poorer opposition or when chasing a game though. 

[Panda]

5 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

There was no overlapping fullback apart from the goal! It was a very disciplined four. That's why I said that the 3-4-2-1 against poorer sides would be a good chance to play all of them together (poorer than the Tims and not at Hampden, and also sacrificing any remaining hope of Duk and Miovski as a two). Duncan was almost always receiving the ball high up the park with nobody in front of him, he was basically taking a touch and playing it backwards. By that point, against Hibs, Clarkson had already dropped deep, further congesting the midfield, as that's what he does. 

McRorie is in no way similar to Barron or Clarkson. Both clearly excel in one or more areas of the pitch. It's completely disingenuous to say that we don't know their best positions, we do (I do, and so does Robson and I expect most Dons fans). Barron is a central midfielder that moves the ball on quickly and has good vision. He can play sitting in a two or a one. He's a bit lost further up the pitch and struggles when asked to press high in a two with one behind. Clarkson is also a central midfielder that moves the ball on quickly and has great vision. He can play sitting in a two or a one (better than Barron in a one, where he excels, but requires two chasers in front). Going forward, he can also play in front of two sitting midfielders in either a one or two, but can't play the Shinnie/Ramadani role of chasing it high up the pitch with one in behind. He is better suited to being the one, whether deep or high up the pitch as his side to side movement is excellent and he thrives in the space. When playing as a two he tends to drift vertically, especially if starting further forward. He always wants to be on the ball rather than create the space for others to be on it (as does Barron, and we're better for it). These two guys aren't utility players like McRorie, and we shouldn't be trying to make them be either. They're far more talented than McRorie and should be cultivated in their best positions. Guys like Duncan and Polvara just need minutes on the football pitch at this level to develop their confidence and strength. That shouldn't be sacrificed either to accommodate a player out of position. 

The evidence for the above is seeing them play every week. There's a reason that they don't play together often (Goodwin tried it several times). We can see the way they play around other players being asked to play similar roles, it's ridiculous to suggest that they need to be played several times together to prove that their styles don't compliment. It's just an unnecessary experiment. Neither brings anything to the other's game. The 3-4-2-1 is certainly worth a try against poorer opposition or when chasing a game though. 

I disagree we've found Clarkson's best position or how to utilise him best. I think if you ran a poll on this site you would see a split if opinions over where exactly he should be playing - whether Barron is in the side or not.

Your argument is essentially "I don't think it'll work" rather than "this has been tried repeatedly and hasn't worked". So it's a bit of a hypothetical argument.

We've 100 games between now and the end of the year and I'm sure at least once we'll see both play together, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[RicoS321]

3 hours ago, Panda said:

I disagree we've found Clarkson's best position or how to utilise him best. I think if you ran a poll on this site you would see a split if opinions over where exactly he should be playing - whether Barron is in the side or not.

Your argument is essentially "I don't think it'll work" rather than "this has been tried repeatedly and hasn't worked". So it's a bit of a hypothetical argument.

We've 100 games between now and the end of the year and I'm sure at least once we'll see both play together, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

No, my argument is that it's been tried and hasn't worked. Because it has been on numerous occasions as I keep saying. Clarkson excelled in the number six role last season, that was his best position. He also played very well under Goodwin in number ten (ahead of Barron a couple of times, as I've said, it'll work well in a 4-2-3-1 at the expense of McGrath). He's also played well in a sitting pair alongside Shinnie (see Hibs latterly). I don't know what his best position of the three is, but I know he's very good in all of those so it makes no odds. I also don't need to specifically see him play in every role to know that he's not suited to it, based on the style of player (most arguments are over where Clarkson can't play, rather than can). It's fairly simple stuff really, I'm not being obtuse. You select a style that you want to play and pick players to play in that style. For a 5-4-1 against good opposition, you want a right sided midfielder that holds his position, is disciplined and will get forward when the attack requires. That's not Clarkson, he's not that disciplined and nor do you want to turn him into that type of cautious player.

I've suggested two setups that I think could accommodate Clarkson and Barron, with reasons (and reasons why wouldn't test that against the Tims). You've suggested the right midfield role that Duncan played against PAOK, with no real explanation as to what Clarkson offers in that role. Nor can you explain why it so spectacularly failed against Hibs (until Barron got canned), where you yourself suggested that Clarkson was coming to deep for the ball, which is what I've pointed out numerous times. The 5-4-1, right midfield position nullifies all Clarkson's best attributes and amplifies his worst ones. 

[Panda]

38 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

No, my argument is that it's been tried and hasn't worked. Because it has been on numerous occasions as I keep saying.

Like I said, they've started once together this season. I certainly haven't seen enough to suggest they can't play together, you say you have. That's your opinion.

But how many they started under Goodwin is irrelevant really. 

38 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

Clarkson excelled in the number six role last season, that was his best position. He also played very well under Goodwin in number ten (ahead of Barron a couple of times, as I've said, it'll work well in a 4-2-3-1 at the expense of McGrath). He's also played well in a sitting pair alongside Shinnie (see Hibs latterly)

Oh, so he can play in more than one position? 

38 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

. You select a style that you want to play and pick players to play in that style.

Not necessarily, you can also pick a style that suits the players you have.

38 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

 

 

38 minutes ago, RicoS321 said:

 

I've suggested two setups that I think could accommodate Clarkson and Barron, with reasons (and reasons why wouldn't test that against the Tims). You've suggested the right midfield role that Duncan played against PAOK, with no real explanation as to what Clarkson offers in that role. Nor can you explain why it so spectacularly failed against Hibs (until Barron got canned), where you yourself suggested that Clarkson was coming to deep for the ball, which is what I've pointed out numerous times. The 5-4-1, right midfield position nullifies all Clarkson's best attributes and amplifies his worst ones. 

He wouldn't necessarily play the same role as Duncan on account he's a different player with different attributes. i also explained the 5-4-1 against PAOK didn't necessarily stay as that and in a few games now we've shaped into a 5-2-2-1, which for me I think Clarkson could excel in. He wouldn't spend 90 minutes camped as a wide midfielder.

Him and Clarkson didn't work against Hibs because we had three players all dropping deep and we became too congested. That isn't necessarily down to the individuals, Polvara didn't really go on and offer anything different.

Ultimately though, like I've already said, it's essentially a hypothetical argument we're having here. 

[manc_don]

Match day! Fully expecting to wake up to a cricket score, but we can always live in hope. COYR

[RicoS321]

12 hours ago, Panda said:

Like I said, they've started once together this season. I certainly haven't seen enough to suggest they can't play together, you say you have. That's your opinion.

But how many they started under Goodwin is irrelevant really. 

Oh, so he can play in more than one position? 

Not necessarily, you can also pick a style that suits the players you have.

 

He wouldn't necessarily play the same role as Duncan on account he's a different player with different attributes. i also explained the 5-4-1 against PAOK didn't necessarily stay as that and in a few games now we've shaped into a 5-2-2-1, which for me I think Clarkson could excel in. He wouldn't spend 90 minutes camped as a wide midfielder.

Him and Clarkson didn't work against Hibs because we had three players all dropping deep and we became too congested. That isn't necessarily down to the individuals, Polvara didn't really go on and offer anything different.

Ultimately though, like I've already said, it's essentially a hypothetical argument we're having here. 

No, it isn't a hypothetical argument, we see the players every single week and know their abilities and their best positions (yes, plural, it doesn't undermine the argument in any way whatsoever), and we have multiple instances of them playing together. Polvara did offer something different against Hibs, it was almost immediate. He maintained position higher up the park, which meant that we didn't have "three players all dropping deep" and basically followed his man without drifting after we went down to ten. I would suggest looking at a heat map of the two, but the sending off makes it a little unfair. You could see the static line of four against PAOK too, it was extraordinarily disciplined. 

A 5-2-2-1 isn't really a recognisable formation as we've seen, it has to be a 3-4-2-1, with emphasis on the fullbacks being a little bit higher. It's the catch 22 with playing against a better side. You aim to play a 5-2-2-1 or 3-4-2-1, but one or both of the forward players gets dragged backwards to mark their attacking player and it permanently becomes a four. Tiredness also plays a part there (see Hibs). If the fullbacks drop deeper into a 5-2-2-1 then you're left with massive gaps that a good team exploits. In Polvara, and Duncan to a lesser extent, you've got someone who will maintain the discipline and patience in either role, Clarkson only really advantages you in the forward position and is a liability backwards for the reasons you state. It's basically a tiring and thankless job, donkey work suited to a poorer player. That's the name of the game against the Tims away unfortunately. I absolutely think we should try the 3-4-2-1 against poorer opposition (I said it after Frankfurt away), with Devlin and McKenzie able to close the gaps, but that will put an end to Duk and Miovski as a two and leave nothing for Sokler and Gueye (which I'm comfortable with). Against the Tims, and especially with our fixture list, having Barron or Clarkson (it'll be the former today I expect) is a far greater asset than having them in a stultifying role out wide.

[Elgindon]

This might be a closer game than usual.An early goal,we might create a few doubts,but not going to get my hopes up

Oot

2 - 2 Barron,Polvara

[Jute]

 

Midfield looks really lightweight with Clarkson and Polvara. McGrath not even on the bench is a bit concerning. Was anything mentioned in any of press conferences?

[Panda]

6 minutes ago, Jute said:

 

Midfield looks really lighweight with Clarkson and Polvara. McGrath not even on the bench is a bit concerning. Was anything mentioned in any of press conferences?

Yeh, would have dropped Polvara or Hayes and played Barron, but Rico made such a fuss about it that Robson has placated him.

If we lose today I want Rico out.

[BigAl]

McGrath presumably presumably suffering the after her effects of the vicious assault he was subjected to by thon Greek thug ?

[BigAl]

Switched off already

Every bit as bad as anticipated

Question of how many they fancy helping themselves to this afternoon

[Jute]

Abject performance from Dons. Midfield completely over run by a Celtic team playing at walking pace. Cannot be approaching games like this. Lucky it’s only 5. 

[BigAl]

One step forward, about six backwards

As you were Robson, invited the pressure back on you with that.

Absolutely fucking woeful

[Panda]

Barry Robson's record in three games at Celtic Park

0-4

0-5

0-6

Progress.

[manc_don]

2 minutes ago, Panda said:

Barry Robson's record in three games at Celtic Park

0-4

0-5

0-6

Progress.

Wild that this level of performance is acceptable. I was reading an unrelated news article (it was 3-0 at the time) by the time I’d finished reading it was 6. FFS.

[BigAl]

25 minutes ago, manc_don said:

Wild that this level of performance is acceptable. 

It isn't Manc

Certainly not in my view

[redordead]

Thursday isn't really an excuse this time. Celtic spent midweek chasing shadows around Madrid with ten men.

No style, no systems and I feel like this was treated as a freebie after Thursday. We now sit very close to the bottom. The fitba is honking and I'm not sure we can survive Robson past Christmas.

However he got to a cup final ( fuck knows how because we were awful in the semi too) and the team have performed reasonably in Europe. Meaning he'll be there until Europe and the final are done.

We need an actual coach. Like glass but a bit better at the defence stuff. We need to start trying to play football. I mean less than 20% today. That's shameful.