sevco v Dons

[Sand dan Glokta]

Last night was another disappointment against the old firm with the same old stand-off tactics from McInnes. When the team was announced, no-one could say they were overtly unhappy with how we set up. It was essentially the same team that played St Mirren and pumped Hibs.

 

Yet every time we play the ugly sisters we have the same mentality – keep it tight for the first 10-15 mins and nullify them. We all know the script; one goal down and chasing the game to lose a few more. Why do Rangers and Celtic raise their games for us and we do the opposite? In years gone by WE did the opposite. The old firm games, at least at home, were more often than not positive. We do not come out and get in their faces. McInnes panders to them. He’s always trying to be ‘that bit more clever’ and every time we allow them to come flying out the traps at us.

 

The Rangers team have no real better players than we do, they just played with desire. As horrible as that is to say they wanted it more.

 

Huge question marks appear over McInnes now. He’s had it largely all his own way while he has been here, now the pressure is on. The fans will quickly turn on him if this carry’s on, or at the very least he doesn’t acknowledge and address it. The same old, “we want to make a better showing of ourselves” is no good anymore. He has to come out and take the game to these 2. Before some would of accepted this much even if we didn’t get a result; but now he’s built his own rod for his back. He has to win or at least draw and do it with venom.

 

Someone put up McInnes record against the old firm above; it’s even worse viewing against the rest of the top 6 this season. We’ve only beaten Hibs twice and Killie once. The bigger question should be, ‘how’ are we still second? 

 

Milne might not press McInnes and be happy to finish 3rd, but the fans won't be. We'll see how much he enjoys the club when knives start coming out.

 

[Ramperbamper]

Not saying you are wrong BB but think these statistics require a bit of balance and perspective.

 

21 of these games were against Celtic.  Since the 2013-14 season, Celtic have played 175 league games and lost 10.  Therefore, everyone has a crap record against them.

 

Of the other 7 games, we have won 2 and lost 5 which yes is a poor return but you can't write off McInnes' fantastic record over 230 odd games as manager and slaughter him just because he has lost 5 of those games against rangers.

 

Agree with this - and big games are about more than the Old Firm. Need to look at cup semis, wins at Tynecastle/Easter Road, wins against the Tim and Hun in Glasgow etc which we've had.

 

We've done it before, and we've shown we're capable. Which is why it's infuritating.

 

Yet to be convinced the Huns are able to go on winning runs against the pish of the league as we and McInnes have shown they can. Very hopeful we'll still get 2nd.

 

 

[RicoS321]

The Rangers team have no real better players than we do, they just played with desire. As horrible as that is to say they wanted it more.

 

For the first time in years, I don't believe this to be true. They do have better players than us, and now they appear to be well organised. Murty isn't some tactical genius, he just puts good players out in a formation they can play in and that's enough.

 

Our weaknesses are obvious, in midfield, centre half and striker. We just don't have the depth in those areas and the first choice is also questionable. Weirdly, Ball came on and shored up our midfield? Fit was that about? If he'd started Ball in midfield he'd have - correctly - been slaughtered. Yet given their set up with Tavernier on the right, having Shinnie wider might have helped us. GMS simply couldn't provide the cover required and Considine kept coming inside because our midfield was overrun constantly.

 

We're a couple of players short. We can beat all the other teams though, which means it will be close this season.

[Sand dan Glokta]

For the first time in years, I don't believe this to be true. They do have better players than us, and now they appear to be well organised. Murty isn't some tactical genius, he just puts good players out in a formation they can play in and that's enough.

 

Our weaknesses are obvious, in midfield, centre half and striker. We just don't have the depth in those areas and the first choice is also questionable. Weirdly, Ball came on and shored up our midfield? Fit was that about? If he'd started Ball in midfield he'd have - correctly - been slaughtered. Yet given their set up with Tavernier on the right, having Shinnie wider might have helped us. GMS simply couldn't provide the cover required and Considine kept coming inside because our midfield was overrun constantly.

 

We're a couple of players short. We can beat all the other teams though, which means it will be close this season.

 

I really couldn’t say there was much between the teams at all last night other than desire to win and belief. Outside of their fullbacks and possibly Martin (we didn't test him that much, and we did have a few one on ones) I wouldn't really take anyone else from their team I don't think. 

 

They don’t have great players in my eyes, but I do agree with you they were coached and put together right. As painful as last night was, their biggest battles will be the rest of the league. We’re well versed in beating the rest, but they have struggled. For the 3 wins against us, they’ve suffered the same losses to the bottom 6.

 

They get pumped up to play us like we used to against them. Something needs to severely change in our mentality. We have more than enough to beat them and being trounced 3 times by that buck tooth mug is grating.

[RicoS321]

Morelos is a better striker than Rooney, Tavernier is a much better attacking full back than Logan (and he inexplicably defended very well last night), Goss looked decent in midfield, Murphy is a better player than GMS and Candeis better than Stewart. It's not significant, but they're sightly better than us and they were at home. We need to have our best team out to beat them and I think that would have included McGinn, May and Arnason rather than Stewart, Rooney and O'Connor but fitness meant that wasn't possible. We were weak and we played weakly but I don't think we should be expecting to come away from Ibrox with points given the current squads.

[Sand dan Glokta]

Morelos is a better striker than Rooney, Tavernier is a much better attacking full back than Logan (and he inexplicably defended very well last night), Goss looked decent in midfield, Murphy is a better player than GMS and Candeis better than Stewart. It's not significant, but they're sightly better than us and they were at home. We need to have our best team out to beat them and I think that would have included McGinn, May and Arnason rather than Stewart, Rooney and O'Connor but fitness meant that wasn't possible. We were weak and we played weakly but I don't think we should be expecting to come away from Ibrox with points given the current squads.

 

No? I would of thought there was enough. Murphy didn’t do a lot in my eyes, but I’ll give you Goss looked solid.

 

Those guys you mention coming in would of helped us, but we still had enough on the park to make a difference. We barely spent any time in their half in the first 30 minutes prior to their goal which I again I think was due to the players being told to hit them on the counter. What little chances we did have led to 2 clean through on goal chances. Imagine what might of happened had we actually got in their face from the off. They looked better as we allowed them more of the ball.

 

[RicoS321]

No? I would of thought there was enough. Murphy didn’t do a lot in my eyes, but I’ll give you Goss looked solid.

 

Those guys you mention coming in would of helped us, but we still had enough on the park to make a difference. We barely spent any time in their half in the first 30 minutes prior to their goal which I again I think was due to the players being told to hit them on the counter. What little chances we did have led to 2 clean through on goal chances. Imagine what might of happened had we actually got in their face from the off. They looked better as we allowed them more of the ball.

 

I didn't mean we shouldn't ever get points at Iprix, just that the default based on the teams would dictate that they should be beating us. We didn't give ourselves a chance like by playing shite.

 

The problem with pressing is that you have to do it from the very front, and Rooney can't do that. He works hard, but once he's out of position chasing someone then he's not getting back. When he does chase back then he's out of position for the break. It's a huge problem for us. That's why Stockley was always the preferred option in the big games despite being totally horse. We've backed ourselves into a corner by just having Maynard as the option. Stockley was actually more useful despite being pish.

[BigAl]

So Newco have taken ten points from fifteen against us and Celtic

We have taken zero points from fifteen against Newco and Celtic yet we are equal on points.

Not really sure what my point is here, but just thought it worth throwing that out there.

 

Actually quick edit, I guess it highlights a few points, none of which are any real surprise.

 

1) We lack "big game" mentality or strenght

2) Newco are capable of raising their game in big matchs

3) We are capable of picking up points on a more regular basis against everyone else than Newco are.

4) We arel ikely to finsih behind Newco if we can't sort out our big match performances

[RicoS321]

So Newco have taken ten points from fifteen against us and Celtic

We have taken zero points from fifteen against Newco and Celtic yet we are equal on points.

Not really sure what my point is here, but just thought it worth throwing that out there.

 

Actually quick edit, I guess it highlights a few points, none of which are any real surprise.

 

1) We lack "big game" mentality or strenght

2) Newco are capable of raising their game in big matchs

3) We are capable of picking up points on a more regular basis against everyone else than Newco are.

4) We arel ikely to finsih behind Newco if we can't sort out our big match performances

 

It could equally highlight that they are both better teams, but have the tendency to be complacent when smaller  teams raise their game against them. The bookies tend to have the huns favourites when they've played us recently. They've spent much more. Objectively, we should be taking points off them (the hun), especially at Pittodrie, but they should have the better record, so we are probably one win down on where we should be against the hun. Objectively (based on resources), we should be getting about 1 win per season against the Tim.

[LA-Don]

I'd say the huns are very similar to us in terms of players although we definitely have areas needing strengthened, but Celtic have better players. When only us and Ross County haven't taken points off one or both of the old firm this year (if that is correct) I think the problem is 100% the manager and his preparation/tactics. If we can beat the rest we have the ability to take points from the old firm. This question should be posed to DM in an interview. It's not one or two games, we are consistently bad against both and tactics are the same and wrong virtually every single game.

 

Big Al - your point backs me up. We have the same points as Rangers despite them taking 10 of 15 from us and Celtic. They aren't that good, no need for the tactics we see. Celtic aren't that good either as others have shown.

 

I don't think Rangers or Celtic raise their game against us. They just look good because we are shit and our tactics are wrong. Give teams time and space and sit back and they'll look good against us.

 

Initially I assumed DM isn't going anywhere, he declined the huns and is saying all the right stuff. He's made us credible but clearly cannot take us further - there is zero argument against that. Now we have the stadium issue - how can DM walk away in the middle of this? That would create a shit ton of drama. Does DM go to the huns in the summer which is more respectful after doing all he can with us including getting us new facilities, or does he go to the huns then because he doesn't get new facilities and a stadium? Maybe I'm full of shit but I wonder.

[Guest kiriakovisthenewstrachan]

It is important to consider style of play against the old firm.

 

Someone mentioned only us and Ross County have failed to take anything from the old firm this season and part of me thinks that is because we are prepared to actually have a go to try to win the game.  If you see the stats the other night the game actually looked quite even in terms of efforts at goal, corners etc.

 

Most smaller teams when they play their bigger games tend to shut up shop and park the bus as it were.  Despite DMs failings he doesn't try to play the Mourinho way with 11 men behind the ball and bore the life out of the fans.

 

The result, we might end up losing more than we should.  But, would the support tolerate the team setting out to play for a point instead? - You saw the general reaction when due to injuries we were forced to play with about 9 centre halves against Celtic recently.  The fans just don't like that way of thinking.

[RicoS321]

It is important to consider style of play against the old firm.

 

Someone mentioned only us and Ross County have failed to take anything from the old firm this season and part of me thinks that is because we are prepared to actually have a go to try to win the game.  If you see the stats the other night the game actually looked quite even in terms of efforts at goal, corners etc.

 

Most smaller teams when they play their bigger games tend to shut up shop and park the bus as it were.  Despite DMs failings he doesn't try to play the Mourinho way with 11 men behind the ball and bore the life out of the fans.

 

The result, we might end up losing more than we should.  But, would the support tolerate the team setting out to play for a point instead? - You saw the general reaction when due to injuries we were forced to play with about 9 centre halves against Celtic recently.  The fans just don't like that way of thinking.

 

I don't think we put 11 men behind the ball against the hun in the last couple of games, but we did exactly that in every game against them and the tims prior to those. I'm not sure which games you were watching.

 

How many of the shots on goal came after we were 2-0 down the other night? Stats are only useful in context.

[BigAl]

I don't think we put 11 men behind the ball against the hun in the last couple of games, but we did exactly that in every game against them and the tims prior to those. I'm not sure which games you were watching.

 

How many of the shots on goal came after we were 2-0 down the other night? Stats are only useful in context.

 

Pretty much all of them and this is not the first time in recent games this has been the case.

Far too much respect and fear in our tactics against them.

Why is it we can all see this, but the management can't 

[rocket_scientist]

Far too much respect and fear in our tactics against them.

 

For me it's not so much the tactics but the mentality.

 

If the management doesn't believe, truly believe, that we are good enough to beat them, how can the players?

 

[RicoS321]

Pretty much all of them and this is not the first time in recent games this has been the case.

Far too much respect and fear in our tactics against them.

Why is it we can all see this, but the management can't 

 

I think it's more of a personnel issue. We had the same setup against the hun as we did against hibs, with the big difference being May. McGinn didn't get a minute's peace because May (who was pretty gash with the ball in that game) kept sticking his toe in coming back the way as well as being able to pressure the defence high up the pitch too and being able to take the ball in wide areas and wait for support. We didn't sit in against the hun the other night, we just couldn't defend from the front because Rooney doesn't offer that. How do you press when you've got a guy that isn't quick enough to press? By sacrificing a midfielder to join him, and one the occasions we did that they ran right through us. So we naturally hold back and let them come at us. You have to defend from the front and we don't do that with Rooney and so better teams, that can move the ball more quickly, play round us (utilising the holding midfielder to great effect usually).

[Sand dan Glokta]

After watching a guy break down on twitter break down our tactics in the build up to their first goal; we play man for man against them. This leaves huge holes in midfield and has our wing backs in central defence chasing wingers and centre backs out wide to cover them. I’m not a coach or manager, but even I can tell you that is tatties over the side from the get go. You let players drop off onto a players playing position.

 

Why do we never just play them as we play everyone else? Every other team plays generally their normal game against both cheeks and manages to take something off them. Question marks over McInnes for me now.

 

Naivety in trying to out think the other manager with his football intelligence. No wonder we never look up for it when all we do is set up to chase them round the park for 90 minutes.

 

We need to hope he's smart enough to admit his mistakes and change things otherwise we'll turn on him big time. 

 

[RicoS321]

After watching a guy break down on twitter break down our tactics in the build up to their first goal; we play man for man against them. This leaves huge holes in midfield and has our wing backs in central defence chasing wingers and centre backs out wide to cover them. I’m not a coach or manager, but even I can tell you that is tatties over the side from the get go. You let players drop off onto a players playing position.

 

We didn't go man for man the entire game, just for that goal though. People were dragged out of position (Considine came central etc) and they took advantage out wide. I have to say, Lewis' punch for the first left a lot to be desired.

 

Why do we never just play them as we play everyone else? Every other team plays generally their normal game against both cheeks and manages to take something off them. Question marks over McInnes for me now.

 

No they don't, that's nonsense. Pretty much every time the huns have dropped points this season they've completely dominated the opening periods and wasted numerous chances. Teams that have taken points from them (Hamilton, Killie) have sat in, frustrated them and then taken their chances. As I said previously, we played the same system against Hibs (and St Mirren) but the personnel were different. Also, you just stated that we went "man-for-man", which is the opposite of changing our game against them (I don't think we did).

 

Naivety in trying to out think the other manager with his football intelligence. No wonder we never look up for it when all we do is set up to chase them round the park for 90 minutes.

 

We need to hope he's smart enough to admit his mistakes and change things otherwise we'll turn on him big time.

 

I'm not sure what yer point is. What tactic should we have deployed, and how do you think we would have deployed that tactic with the personnel involved? It's easy to criticise, and easy to analyse an individual goal, but in terms of the entire game approach, what would you have done differently with those personnel (or how would you have changed the line up)?

[Sand dan Glokta]

We didn't go man for man the entire game, just for that goal though. People were dragged out of position (Considine came central etc) and they took advantage out wide. I have to say, Lewis' punch for the first left a lot to be desired.

 

No they don't, that's nonsense. Pretty much every time the huns have dropped points this season they've completely dominated the opening periods and wasted numerous chances. Teams that have taken points from them (Hamilton, Killie) have sat in, frustrated them and then taken their chances. As I said previously, we played the same system against Hibs (and St Mirren) but the personnel were different. Also, you just stated that we went "man-for-man", which is the opposite of changing our game against them (I don't think we did).

 

I'm not sure what yer point is. What tactic should we have deployed, and how do you think we would have deployed that tactic with the personnel involved? It's easy to criticise, and easy to analyse an individual goal, but in terms of the entire game approach, what would you have done differently with those personnel (or how would you have changed the line up)?

 

I’m not doing your fancy break down so I’ll just reply for the below.

 

 

But then that is my argument. We keep starting the same way every time against both cheeks and it never works. We try to keep it tight against them to begin with, giving them lots of the ball and going man for man for the first 20-30 minutes and every time we lose a goal. He tried playing our more attacking formation this time round but again it fell apart. Having Christie sat deep in our half when the ball breaks and hoping he runs through the team won’t work. This also explains why we stand off them so much in games and allow them confidence and to grow. Christ, Celtics best game this season apparently was the 3-0 gubbing of us at home. Why? We did all of the above and made them look better.

 

Man for man isn’t working. It might work if we went a goal up and had them chasing the game, but if we sit in against them then keep a shape and make them struggle to get through the lines. We just seem like a team at sea against them. Don’t have Logan chasing around the pitch tracking wingers. This would also explain why he has been gash for so many big games.

 

What would I have done differently? Not sat in against them or chased them man for man round the pitch at the start of the game. We have a good attacking forward line. Set up you stall and show them we aren’t here to chase the game this time. Push them back into their half by concentrating on our strengths rather than trying to second guess what they will do. We had 2 opportunities where we went 1 on 1 with their keeper. That had McLean, GMS, Rooney and Stewart all in or around their box at both points. Give them a headache trying to stop us not chasing them round our half.

 

 

 

[Guest kiriakovisthenewstrachan]

Every other team plays generally their normal game against both cheeks and manages to take something off them.

 

Don't understand how you can say every other club manages to take something off the old firm.  Celtic just went unbeaten for about 70 odd games.  No one really took anything off them bar the (very) odd point. 

 

All this thread is really about is three poor games against the huns. 

 

History has shown over the last couple of years that they are mince against the wee teams and will probably drop a few clangers before the end of the season.  We will still finish above them.

[BobbyBiscuit]

Don't understand how you can say every other club manages to take something off the old firm.  Celtic just went unbeaten for about 70 odd games.  No one really took anything off them bar the (very) odd point. 

 

All this thread is really about is three poor games against the huns. 

 

History has shown over the last couple of years that they are mince against the wee teams and will probably drop a few clangers before the end of the season.  We will still finish above them.

 

I think it is still about the Celtic games. It's how we lose - we never give them a game, Scottish Cup Final apart. We are beaten before it starts. If we actually put up a fight in these matches I think defeat would at least be easier to stomach.

 

Wednesday we were far too deep in our starting position far too much.  This was then compounded by individuals having poor nights, not helped by us being on the backfoot all too often.  But, why are we so deep against them when we know they are fragile when being attacked?  Is it the ridiculous inferiority complex kicking in and the subconscious making us drop back or is it the tactics?  It may be both.

[RicoS321]

I’m not doing your fancy break down so I’ll just reply for the below.

 

Apologies, it won't happen again (but, for reference, all you do is type

at the start of a paragraph and

at the end to separate out the text).

 

 

But then that is my argument. We keep starting the same way every time against both cheeks and it never works. We try to keep it tight against them to begin with, giving them lots of the ball and going man for man for the first 20-30 minutes and every time we lose a goal. He tried playing our more attacking formation this time round but again it fell apart. Having Christie sat deep in our half when the ball breaks and hoping he runs through the team won’t work. This also explains why we stand off them so much in games and allow them confidence and to grow. Christ, Celtics best game this season apparently was the 3-0 gubbing of us at home. Why? We did all of the above and made them look better.

 

Man for man isn’t working. It might work if we went a goal up and had them chasing the game, but if we sit in against them then keep a shape and make them struggle to get through the lines. We just seem like a team at sea against them. Don’t have Logan chasing around the pitch tracking wingers. This would also explain why he has been gash for so many big games.

 

What would I have done differently? Not sat in against them or chased them man for man round the pitch at the start of the game. We have a good attacking forward line. Set up you stall and show them we aren’t here to chase the game this time. Push them back into their half by concentrating on our strengths rather than trying to second guess what they will do. We had 2 opportunities where we went 1 on 1 with their keeper. That had McLean, GMS, Rooney and Stewart all in or around their box at both points. Give them a headache trying to stop us not chasing them round our half.

 

But all of that assumes that we're not actually playing another team that has designs on winning the game. You're saying we change the way we play, but we don't, it's just that the team we are playing against is better. Having Rooney up front against Hibs is not the same as against Rangers. Rooney does not fit in a team that is pushing them back or pressing high, he simply just gets passed around and then we lose shape as our midfield gets dragged out to cover. That is what occurs. That is what would occur against St Mirren or Hibs if they were better. We're not sitting in as a tactic, it's just a natural occurrence when you have a slow forward. Going man for man is the most attacking way of playing them, which is what you're saying we shouldn't do, but then saying we should. We don't have the ball 100% of the time so we can't dictate anything without pressing high. The unpalatable part here is that we actually played better when Ball came on. Partly because they were 2-0 up, but partly because we matched them in midfield and that allowed greater width and prevented Tavernier getting forward. If we'd started with Ball in midfield we'd all (including me) have accused McInnes of bottling it. It would also have caused us huge problems at the back because we don't have a natural back 3 without taking Shinnie out of midfield to wing back. Again, you can't just say, "I would have attacked them", because that totally ignores personnel and the fact that there is an opposition.

[Sand dan Glokta]

Don't understand how you can say every other club manages to take something off the old firm.  Celtic just went unbeaten for about 70 odd games.  No one really took anything off them bar the (very) odd point. 

 

All this thread is really about is three poor games against the huns. 

 

History has shown over the last couple of years that they are mince against the wee teams and will probably drop a few clangers before the end of the season.  We will still finish above them.

 

I apologise for my hyperbole, but Bobby has summed it up well below. It's the manner of the loss. We've lifted our skirt before we even start. Although, as an aside, they didn't win every game in that unbeaten run. When was the last time we even drew with them?

 

We're not stupid enough to expect us to dominate the cheeks from start to finish, but bring the game to them. Don't start slow, lose a goal from trying to nullify, chase chase chase and lose the game.

 

I've questioned how we play in comparison to other teams in the league. Everyone else in the top 6 has taken something from both teams in the old farm or ran them close. We haven't.

[RicoS321]

Wednesday we were far too deep in our starting position far too much.  This was then compounded by individuals having poor nights, not helped by us being on the backfoot all too often.  But, why are we so deep against them when we know they are fragile when being attacked?  Is it the ridiculous inferiority complex kicking in and the subconscious making us drop back or is it the tactics?  It may be both.

 

We weren't starting deep, we dropped deep because we couldn't attack them when we didn't have the ball. Surely it's possible that the natural flow of the game - due to the personnel - forces us back down the pitch? Rooney simply can't play the role that allows us to stay higher up the pitch. How many times did he take the ball in a position upfield and hold it up for others to join him, or move wide to take the ball, or put real pressure on the defenders and holding midfielder? It all starts there. McInnes tried to fix it with May, but he's been largely pish or injured. It's why it was so important to ditch Maynard and get someone else in. Anyone else really. Even a big cunt that we could hoof it at. We can't attack them because we don't have the personnel that our most attacking formation (4-2-3-1) allows us to do in every other game simply because we're much better than the opponent.

[Sand dan Glokta]

Apologies, it won't happen again (but, for reference, all you do is type  at the end to separate out the text).

 

 

But all of that assumes that we're not actually playing another team that has designs on winning the game. You're saying we change the way we play, but we don't, it's just that the team we are playing against is better. Having Rooney up front against Hibs is not the same as against Rangers. Rooney does not fit in a team that is pushing them back or pressing high, he simply just gets passed around and then we lose shape as our midfield gets dragged out to cover. That is what occurs. That is what would occur against St Mirren or Hibs if they were better. We're not sitting in as a tactic, it's just a natural occurrence when you have a slow forward. Going man for man is the most attacking way of playing them, which is what you're saying we shouldn't do, but then saying we should. We don't have the ball 100% of the time so we can't dictate anything without pressing high. The unpalatable part here is that we actually played better when Ball came on. Partly because they were 2-0 up, but partly because we matched them in midfield and that allowed greater width and prevented Tavernier getting forward. If we'd started with Ball in midfield we'd all (including me) have accused McInnes of bottling it. It would also have caused us huge problems at the back because we don't have a natural back 3 without taking Shinnie out of midfield to wing back. Again, you can't just say, "I would have attacked them", because that totally ignores personnel and the fact that there is an opposition.

 

 

Cheers, I'll give it a bash in the future!

 

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think they have a better team. I just think we aren't set up right to play them. Our mentality from the off is defensive, regardless of how many attacking players we start with.

 

Regardless it's with McInnes to sort now. 

[BobbyBiscuit]

We weren't starting deep, we dropped deep because we couldn't attack them when we didn't have the ball. Surely it's possible that the natural flow of the game - due to the personnel - forces us back down the pitch? Rooney simply can't play the role that allows us to stay higher up the pitch. How many times did he take the ball in a position upfield and hold it up for others to join him, or move wide to take the ball, or put real pressure on the defenders and holding midfielder? It all starts there. McInnes tried to fix it with May, but he's been largely pish or injured. It's why it was so important to ditch Maynard and get someone else in. Anyone else really. Even a big cunt that we could hoof it at. We can't attack them because we don't have the personnel that our most attacking formation (4-2-3-1) allows us to do in every other game simply because we're much better than the opponent.

 

When I say starting position I mean at re-starts (goal kicks, kick outs etc, not the actual set up at the beginning of the match).  Of course the flow of the game can push us back, not arguing that at all. But when it re-starts we have to get back into where we want to be, unless they're playing some formation which stops that - which I don't believe is the case.  You always go into your planned shape at re-starts, you don't all drop as a unit at that point, but we did it on Wednesday.