sevco v Dons

[RicoS321]

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.

 

I'd say 90% of the time - at re-starts - we had Rooney right on one defender of a well-stretched back three because he doesn't have the pace to split two and ensure that they are both marked as they just pass it round him. We started high up, but had to quickly pull back as each time (and it happened several times) McLean or Christie pushed up alongside Rooney we were left with a gaping hole. If Killie were watching, it's what they will do. The biggest difference being is that their centre half will take 3 touches to get it under control before hoofing it. They're not as quick and as sharp as their hun counterparts. If we'd had an extra midfielder against the hun, then I think it would have allowed us to mitigate Rooney's lack of pace and retain our structure higher up. However, that would have highlighted the other glaring deficiencies we've shown with a back 3.

 

Rooney's position is the key against the huns and tims (and more so becoming an issue against other top 6 teams). It affects absolutely everything.

[Guest kiriakovisthenewstrachan]

Is it the ridiculous inferiority complex kicking in and the subconscious making us drop back or is it the tactics? 

 

It's a great point Bobby. 

 

A lot said on here aboot tactics and personnel but maybe a lot of it is a mental thing.

 

We tend to think our team man for man is comparable to the hun team and we should be competing better.  For the players though does the fact they are playing at a big stadium with a fraction of the supporters that the opposition has play on their minds?  I think that is a big factor.

 

No doubting the inferiority complex certainly comes into play against celtic.  Not sure how you get rid of that though.

 

 

 

[RicoS321]

It's a great point Bobby. 

 

A lot said on here aboot tactics and personnel but maybe a lot of it is a mental thing.

 

We tend to think our team man for man is comparable to the hun team and we should be competing better.  For the players though does the fact they are playing at a big stadium with a fraction of the supporters that the opposition has play on their minds?  I think that is a big factor.

 

No doubting the inferiority complex certainly comes into play against celtic.  Not sure how you get rid of that though.

 

Surely if it did then it would happen every time? We beat them in the run in last season, and there was no shortage of belief then. Or is it just the case that belief will only win you 1 game in 4 (for example) where you're not the obvious favourite? If that isn't the case, then why do teams perform so poorly against us? Lack of belief? But then get a draw against the hun? Belief restored? If GMS had scored his chance at 0-0, would they have lacked belief? I understand that you can be very much up for a game, but I think circumstance will often overtake that (an early goal or whatever) and that your belief is only useful if the other team reduces their belief. Because if both teams have "belief", then who's belief do we believe?

 

At that point, I think it gets a little absurd. I understand the notion. I just don't fully understand it's measure and the extent to which a poorer team can be expected to beat a better team (at their home ground).

[Guest kiriakovisthenewstrachan]

At that point, I think it gets a little absurd. I understand the notion. I just don't fully understand it's measure and the extent to which a poorer team can be expected to beat a better team (at their home ground).

 

Call it belief/bottle, don't know Rico but there's definitely something missing mentally.

 

There's been many a time where we have been on a great run of form and then don't turn up when the dims or huns come a calling.  I think it is as much a mental thing as it is to do with tactics or team selection.

 

You mention for example, if GMS had scored which is kind of my point.  He probably would have scored if the opposition was Motherwell but he didn't at Ibrox and he didn't the previous time at Ibrox when he was one on one with the keeper.

 

The 3-0 huns defeat at Pittodrie last season was a similar thing.  The huns were pish that day but we somehow caved in and gave away 3 goals in aboot 10 minutes.  Nothing to do with tactics or team selection, in my view they just lacked the bottle to win the game.  Just my opinion.

 

 

 

[rocket_scientist]

Call it belief/bottle, don't know Rico but there's definitely something missing mentally.

 

Absolutely. I'm not going to agree with your "opinion" because it's not an opinion. It's a fact.

 

The more interesting angle is why?

 

Some are born more confident than others. Some grow in confidence as they get to the start of their careers as some grow in confidence during their careers. Just like some lose confidence of course. Some just have so much self-belief it never leaves them.

 

This is much more obvious in individual rather than team sports of course but at AFC for a very long time now, we've not seen a team on the pitch with a majority (that's only SIX) having - let's call it - winner mentalities.

 

A good manager builds winner mentalities. A great manager takes a young footballer and stamps a winning mentality all over his spirit, his psyche and his soul, even when it didn't exist before. These good and great managers are winners themselves of course.

 

I don't see McInnes as being able to inspire young prospects. I don't see the footballers he recruits as having winning mentalities, bar one.

 

A mate of mine almost 30 years ago used to bracket people as winners or losers. No grey, it was only black and white. At the time, I thought this harsh and simplistic. In time, I've since learned he wasn't as far out as I originally thought. For me, McInnes is not a winner and doesn't even understand this conversation we are debating right now. Therefore until he's gone, there is zero chance of success.

 

Which leads to a further debate and the need to define success...

[Elgindon]

After 4 or 5 years now, I don't think the leopard is going to be changing its stripes.

 

It's not innovation or risk in my opinion. He just doesn't know.

 

McInnes is not a very good manager. The stupid cunt has changed the defensive partnerships so often - every single season - it's like he's gambling continuously to try and find something that works. He doesn't understand that sometimes in life you need to make a decision, invest in it and let it bear fruit. If it's obviously a bad decision, change course but not every fucking week.

 

Thats the thing though,he WAS giving Celtic a game as recently as 2 years ago(2 home wins v the Tims).So whats happened since then? Its easy to only blame McInnes. Have we underestimated the effect Robson/Flood had on the rest of the team? If we have,who's out there that could do their job? Cant see too many inpsiring targets myself. Are Celtic and Rangers pushing on quicker than our budget allows us to catch up?  Weve had a high turnaround in players to deal with,which has to be a factor in the uncontinuity of selection.

  That side leading up to the cup final last year,banging in 6 and 7 goals, and a baw hair from lifting the cup!! If we'd managed to keep and augment it,who knows where we'd be.

    Where I do agree about McInnes is you would have been looking at him to grow as a manager quicker than he appears to have done.He's been slow to address problems,eg the continued recent lack of hunger in the games v the OF among other things