Rousseau

3 minutes ago, Malangsob said:

I'm in first place? WTF? That's not possible. Anyway...I gave to the Glasgow Children's Hospital. Thanks again buddy. 

McCrorie did seem reluctant to pass forward, but were there passes on? I was frustrated at our #8s not quite making themselves available; they need to find space in between the lines -- and that would help CBs find them too. 

7 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

He didn't play well at times last night and I think that's what's frustrating.  I just can't work out why he looks good for 10 minutes and then disappears for 10.

 

I think you're right that we haven't found the right position for him.  Having said that, we've tried him in most positions (I think) so I don't know if that'll address the issue.  I also accept your point about having someone more creative to support him, and that could work by feeding him the type of balls he needs.  The only question I have then is if Windass is good enough to start building a team around.  He might be, but that's a massive risk that I wouldn't take.  Fortunately that's SG's problem to contend with.

 

I think I've just been hoping that it was an attitude (or laziness) problem he had.  In other words, it could be something that could be tackled by bringing in a new manager perhaps.  I hoped that was the case because then I could look forward to him contributing in more minutes of the match.  It'd be frustrating but at least understandable.  The problem is that he's an enigma.  I talk to my brother, father, son and pals about him, and none of us know what we'd do with him to benefit from his obvious talents.  SG can try, but if it was me I'd be letting him go and putting my energy into other players.

I agree, kind of, but in what way? Was it when things he did didn't come off for him, or are you using the 'anonymous' tag? I get both, to be fair; there are times when he drifts out of games, and certainly last night, things things didn't come off.

Yes, I think he's been played in every position along the front, and a couple further back too! 

Perhaps not, but I don't think we need to. It think he can be a good 'icing-on-the-cake' -type of player. He needs better creativity, but that would suit everyone.

He's certainly enigmatic, but I'd be the opposite, trying to get him into the team.  

2 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

With the emergence of Middleton who showed he is very dangerous, quick, strong and can use both feet maybe a wee change is required? I like Murphy and he knows where the goal is and think he will score a good few this season, however he does lack a wee bit of pace and maybe could replace Windass in beside Morelos allowing young Middleton to play LW?

Middleton is a natural winger, whereas Murphy isn't -- he started his career at Motherwell as a forward, only being converted to a LM later. 

I like the idea of Middleton stretching play on the left, with Tavernier stretching play on the Right, with a Right-winger coming inside to help Morelos. Sadiq could do that, or Windass (I WILL FIT HIM IN! ). 

8 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

- Up front I'm just not happy and I know this is something that divides the support, but Windass can't continue to be a first choice pick.  I'm honestly really trying to warm to him and I'm trying to focus more on the positives he brings (and he does bring a lot), but unless we are counter attacking he does not work well.  He is quick and direct, and when we played away from home last season we could use him effectively in a counter attacking situation.  He was able to beat the last man with pace and score.  However, when we are controlling a game and need to create an opportunity, or finish one off, he's not the right type of player.  SG tried him on the wing, but he can't deliver a good cross and he can't beat his man so I don't know where that leaves us.  In EVERY game I'm reminded that he's on the pitch when he does something.  He's forgettable for the other 30 minutes.  Can anyone put their finger on why that is?  I don't think he's lazy or incapable.  Is it his positioning?  I don't know.

 

I thought he played well last night, in an inside-forward role: he did cross the ball a few times -- he beat his man a couple of times too, but lost a few one-on-ones against that LB, who was just quicker --, admittedly not coming off, and he did get on the end of a few chances (two sitters, for me). He also got stuck in defensively too. 

You make a good point about him playing in away games.

I think he'd be better with some creativity behind him. Relying on him to create is not the way to go. Ejaria was the only 'creative' -type, who came on for Windass (I think?). 

I still don't think he's used properly; we're (the fans) almost trying to shoe-horn him into different roles, but he doesn't quite fit any.  

2 minutes ago, buster. said:

If we are short on gametime and the coaching isn't yet showing then why expect a big change with the same personnel ?

 

The hope has to be that with more games and some fresh blood being introduced that we start to see a difference but that will depend on the quality of players brought in and how present squad members can start to play in a SG system.

 

Will be interesting to see if Sadiq (if fit enough) plays in Macedonia, given it's a game where his style might suit.

I wasn't, I said 'partly'.

We're lacking sharpness, but with the same players I can see improvements, or at least new ways of playing.  

It was a tolerable performance, but not great; I expect to see further, significant, improvements.

It was quite comfortable. Defensively we were solid, and there's a big improvement in the gaps between players/lines, and the CBs pushing up to cut off passes. We pressed and recovered the ball quite quickly, generally. 

It was lacking in quality in the final third. It was disappointing, even though we created several glorious chances, and flat. We need more creativity. 

The positioning of the #8 has to improve: they have to find space in the channels, between the lines; and, crucially, the CBs and McCrorie have to find them with line-splitting passes. Too often it went wide, which played into their hands. I would expect to see that improve with coaching. 

8 minutes ago, buster. said:

Should we have played a couple of more friendlies ?

 

Did the coaching get through to the players ?

 

Should we expect a big change when 5 of the 6 starters middle and front were from last season ?

 

Is Sadiq available for the second leg ?

Probably.

Partly. 

Yes.

Yes.

7 hours ago, RANGERRAB said:

Why did SG start with Murty’s failed 4-2-3-1 tonight?

 

It left Arfield & McCrorie(2)with too much to do at times because Murphy,Windass & Candaeis(3)aren’t 90 minute players.

 

I thought when he changed it in the second half (when Ejaria & Jack came on alongside McCrorie) we looked more solid which we’ll need to be in the second leg & assuming we get through against Osijek in the next round(assuming they get through too) 

He didn't, it was a 4-3-3. 

10 hours ago, craig said:

Good to see Stevie G show some courage by going with the young lads in the latter stages.

 

Would like to see Middleton playing wide left and Murphy on the right (or centrally) with Candeais right.

 

would also be thinking about getting Ejaria into the “10”, perhaps to replace Windass (sorry Rousseau...  )

We weren't really playing with a #10 -- it was 2 #8s. 

Windass was playing Right-Wing. I thought he was good; he's a threat up front -- missing two sitters, for me -- Headers as well!?

I like the idea of Murphy playing on his natural side, with Middleton -- who was superb -- on the other, but I think SG likes a narrow front three, so they're always going to be coming inside.

We need the width from the Full-backs. Flanagan was quite narrow, which is strong defensively, but doesn't give us that width. We need an Ejaria, or someone central, to go from central to wide. 

10 hours ago, craig said:

Good to see Stevie G show some courage by going with the young lads in the latter stages.

 

Would like to see Middleton playing wide left and Murphy on the right (or centrally) with Candeais right.

 

would also be thinking about getting Ejaria into the “10”, perhaps to replace Windass (sorry Rousseau...  )

I did hear Rule Britannia a few times.  

It's not offensive, but-- Oh...

Kenny Miller, though...

@craig seeing Kevin Thomson on BT sports like...

5 minutes ago, buster. said:

Not much cover for Morelos.

 

I'd have been tempted to stick a young forward on the bench insead of Halliday.

Yes, even someone like Rudden. 

We have no cover at all.

18 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Does this really work?

 

I can never see the tweets that I try to post.

Just paste as plain text and wait a couple of seconds while it embeds. 

33 minutes ago, craig said:

Presumably that is the back 5 sorted

 

The front 6 could be any number of combinations - wonder if he is going more with a 4-2

 

RM - Candeais

CM - McCrorie

CM - Arfield

LM - Murphy

 

ST - Morelos

ST - Windass

 

Or Windass sitting just in behind Morelos ?

I think It'll be the same as the friendly:

Shagger

Tav - Goldson - Katic - Flanagan

Candeias - McCrorie - Arfield

Windass - Morelos - Murphy

I'm intrigued, but not sure about Candeias and Windass' positioning, but that's how they lined up against Bury.

@craig -- I actually thought Alli looked shattered. They both had too much work to do in that three. I agree, two of them were not quite needed. 

Trippier did well, and was not playing badly, I was just thinking about how you'd get another man in midfield (See above stills); it sounds an easy player to drop because they have another RB behind him. 

If they brought on another LM, going to a 4-4-2, they would've been better equipped:

Walker - Maguire - Stones - Young (although he looked shattered too and didn't play well)

Lingard - Henderson - Alli - AN Other (struggling to think of their bench)

Kane - Stirling. 

Or, keep what they had, but bring Stirling back and wide to make a 5-4-1 -- but then you sacrifice his pace in behind. 

It's a puzzler. 

3 minutes ago, craig said:

I don't think Trippier was pinned back at all.  He was playing a high line with Walker moving across to CB/RB.  Young was also getting forward too, though not starting as high as Trippier and not as often.  I guess we will agree to disagree on what we saw.

 

I wouldn't have sacrificed Trippier either - he was still doing well.  For me Lingard was absolutely spent after an hour and offered ZERO from that point on - he would have been the one I would have sacrificed because he was exhausted and did little, but not only that but he is too similar to Alli - you don't need both of them in that line-up when up 1-0.  And that could be the naivety of Southgate as a coach - at 1-0 and having witnessed his team giving up possession easily, whilst also watching Modric dictate play like a puppet master.... he should have seen the signs and made the switch to bring on a ball-winner, someone who will stick the foot in - no need to look for a second goal when 1 up.  Bring in Dier for Lingard/Sterling/Alli and have him man mark Modric so that Modric cant pull the strings.  Remember, Croatia didn't score till the 68th minute - but the concerns were already there as they were battering England with possession, almost entirely through Modric.  So at 65 minutes sacrifice an exhausted player (Lingard for me as I said) and prevent Modric from dictating play.

First half, sure; which was when they played well. Second half they were pinned back. 

This was actually a still from the first half -- which was only the case for small moments -- but the second half, this was a common pattern:

And, this was from the Second half:

I'm buzzing for this one!

4 hours ago, buster. said:

Third place play-offs have tended to produce goals.

 

The last four have seen an average of 4.25 goals  (5, 4, 5, 3)

*changes prediction*

8 hours ago, Malangsob said:

Belgium 2-1

 Croatia 2-1

 

Rousseau, thank you for orchestrating this. It was a lot of work, especially during the group stages. If you have a preferred charity I can make a donation.

5 hours ago, craig said:

What a noble gesture

Thanks, I actually enjoy it; it's a good bit of fun.

That's a lovely gesture. I'll leave it up to you.

You might want to reconsider when I rob you of first place...  

Bloody hell, no prisoners from @craig in this "game"... brutal.

4 hours ago, craig said:

I told guys in the pub after 15 minutes "England are giving up way too much possession and it will hurt them".  Proven right.  You simply cannot give a team like Croatia that much possession.  Personally disagree that they needed to go to a back 4 - a back 4 would have meant an extra body in defence, not one less - they had 5 in midfield because both Trippier and Young were acting as wing backs (though Trippier was going forward more than backwards - 5 in the middle should have been enough to stifle Croatia's possession - I think the bigger issue, rather than formation, was personnel.  In the engine room they really only had Henderson to break play up as Alli & Lingard offer very little defensive protection - with Rakitic "destroying" and Modric showing just how much of a little genius he is by way of creation, England offered little resistance to them - Trippier & Young had hands full with Rebic & Perisic so couldn't offer any help.  IMHO, England should have considered bringing Dier (I don't really like him as a player but they had few options for midfield enforcer) on much earlier (when up 1-0) to assist Henderson.

 

Southgate is a thoroughly likeable guy - but even at half time he should have seen the ominous signs of giving so much possession to a team like Croatia.  The signs were there.  At that level you have to take your chances or you will get punished - England got punished for missed chances - how Lingard missed the target when central in front of goal is beyond me.

 

They definitely lacked creativity - and Souness made a really good point - Alli and even Lingard are the typed who prefer to be on the end of things rather than creating them.  They don't keep possession that well.

 

Modric was masterful last night - what a player !

No, they were pinned back making a back-five. The pictures show pretty much a line of 5 with 3 in front. And then, of course, Stirling and Kane weren't really helping out.

Yes, they sat off them too much. 

I would've sacrificed Trappier -- good player but Walker could move out to RB -- for a wide midfielder; Or sub in a LB, moving Young further up to play LM. 

I agree with the rest.