Rousseau

Just now, Gonzo79 said:

I just need to find a couch to hide behind.  

I'm equally as nervous as that, but because of that I can't not look. I need to see what's going on so I can release a few expletives; as a catharsis.  

A Martinez-Rodgers Old Firm game would end 5-5!

8 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

From Rousseau's Guardian article:

 

"When it comes down to it, most managers can be divided into two broad categories: pragmatists and idealists. Pragmatism adapts to meet the needs of the team. Rather than pursuing any long-term holistic vision, the raison d’etre is to win football matches in the short-term and everything else, such as style of play and how pleasing it is on the eye, is secondary."

 

After having Warburton and Pedro, who I'd argue are idealists, do we as a club need the stability a pragmatist would bring, rather than an idealist like Martinez?

I thought Pedro was kind of in the middle; not enough of either to make a difference. He had his principles but did change it to suit certain games. Clearly he wasn't good at either.

It's an interesting point. Clarke would be the obvious pragmatist. It's more short-term, which we could do with. 

I still prefer to look more long-term. The Idealist would bring a better tactical style, and also build upon our Academy, which is what we really need to do. Even in that article, Rodgers is an Idealist too, so it can clearly work in Scotland. 

I'm not convinced Martinez is a realistic option, but a man can dream...

I would be ecstatic with Martinez -- or someone akin to him -- but he'll not be everyone's cup of tea:

Roberto Martínez and Brendan Rodgers: the flawed disciples of Pep Guardiola

https://www.theguardian.com/football/these-football-times/2016/mar/07/roberto-martinez-brendan-rodgers-pep-guardiola-everton-liverpool

It's too long to post, but it's an interesting read. 

1 hour ago, compo said:

You can't tell any player how to pass a ball they either have it or not 

I was too brief; I meant how in terms of the type of pass and where they are passing and who to etc.

9 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

If it's true, it's probably the only appointment I could be excited about.  Style of football is as important as success to me and he's one of very few managers who has a style I'd love to watch.

I'm astonished there's even been contact!

10 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Surely not. He's had no managerial experience.

4 minutes ago, rbr said:

No mate , the meeting with Jones was about Martinez joining , or if he would be prepared to join after the world cup , as far as I,m led to believe there have been 2 meetings.

Apologies; I stand corrected. 

Someone posted it was the assistant, and that made sense -- kind of -- as I really can't believe Martinez is a realistic option. 

Great if true. Even if we're making contact to enquire sounds excellent. 

2 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Surely not. He's had no managerial experience.

I agree. He has nearly been appointed Swansea and Wigan manager, I think. He's well regarded though, and working with Martinez for so long has to have been good for him. But yes, no experience as a manager.

I can't see Martinez being a realistic option.

2 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

I assume Murty is doing that too and the team listened to him for 60 minutes of the Celtic game, and every game since the turn of the year.  Suddenly they stop doing what they've been told and it's now Murty's fault?

 

Too many of our own fans are being disrespectful to him I think.  Murty is a smart guy and knows more about football than any of us will ever know.  He has enough smart people around him to know what's missing from the team, and from his own skillset.

 

In management there are so many other factors that can affect a performance and I expect they're working on that behind the scenes.

No. Pep's philosphy is based on Juego de Posicion: were players have specific tasks and responsibilities within a zoned pitch depending on the phase of the game. He literally instructs the players to take up a position and what they must do, and then how the others move to compensate. Up to the 18-yard box where it comes down to the player to put it in the net. Henry has talked about it; how he was yelled at for moving out of his position, despite actually scoring, because it hampered the rest of the team.

I'm not criticising Murty; he's done a good job. I agree with your sentiments regarding the Celtic game, although he take the blame too for not being able to change it. 

I'm just stating compo's Pep analogy was wrong. He is from a school of philosophy that literally instructs the players what to do and where to go. Murty doesn't utilise that philosophy. 

8 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

A name doing the rumour rounds is Roberto Martinez, just rumours!.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Martínez

I don't think it's him, but his assistant. Graeme Jones. 

We're not getting Martinez; he's only just started with Belgium and he's out of our league.

8 minutes ago, compo said:

Murty is getting stick for failure from the board down to the players no matter who the manager is it could be Pep once they enter the field of battle it's their duty to play well and win the game , some fans are advocating Clarke for the job Lillie will want plenty in compensation and I don't blame them but that would mean a new manager would be operating with a reduced budget it's a vicious circle that means in my eyes failure and aiding and abetting the ******s to unbridled success. 

Your Pep analogy is wrong: Pep tells them were to go and when, what position to take up, how to pass the ball etc.  

Clarke is the stand-out candidate in Scotland, but I have my reservations. He also bought players that he knew personally, which is not a great model -- see Warburton and best-in-the-business McPar-whatever -- but any manager coming in rightly won't have complete control anyway. He can get the best out of players, but I have my doubts whether he can manage a dominant side, in terms of style etc.

Who's left? Has Jack Ross at St Mirren done enough? I would suggest not, as he's not got Premiership experience. Alan Archibald has done well at Partick, but he doesn't inspire much confidence. 

And what market are we shopping in?

I don't think we can attract anyone from the EPL, and perhaps some of the Championship.

Jovanovic is good, but he's doing well at Fulham and we're unlikely to be able to attract him. Lower down there is Christiansen at Leeds, or formerly, who was doing well until that collapse and won the league in Cyprus. Farke's doing ok at Norwich. 

The only foreign man mentioned would be Preud'homme, but can we get him? Is he too much of a risk? He's certainly got the track record, a solid 60% win-rate in competitive leagues and has won things in a couple of countries; and he's currently unattached.

I don't think we can attract Gio.

I really wish I knew what kind of market we're shopping in? Is it EPL, Championship? Second-tier European leagues, like Belgium? I don't know.

I really don't think Murty is getting the job anyway. 

To get it he would need to do a remarkable job: giving Celtic a good, close run AND win the Cup, which was and is unlikely. 

He's done a good job, but he's not good enough. I'm not criticising the guy per se, it's just that he's been thrown in to do a job without any experience. 

31 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Martinez will have to see out the WC with Belgium, so would have no time to settle in.  Was he Wigan manager when they won the FA Cup?

 

 

It's Martinez's Assistant, not Martinez himself, I think.

13 hours ago, Barebear said:

If Brenda goes this summer and Clark goes to them, how will you feel?

I'd be astonished.

2 hours ago, Gaffer said:

I agree with much of what you say.  As I've mentioned before, one of the simplest things we could do is move the ball faster.  We have a change of mentality at home.  The players are given more time on the ball so they take it.  It shouldn't matter how much time the opposition is willing to give us, we need to switch the ball faster to open up the spaces.  I don't however think we are as linear as you say.  I do see dynamic runs from the majority of the front 4, but it's still too tight because we've taken too long to move the ball.

 

I know you like your stats and if you look at our speed of play at home (against most teams that sit in) compared with our speed against those who close us down, you'll be surprised at the difference.  I've offered other ways we can deal with the issue we have at home, but simply moving the ball faster is possibly a simple (in some respects) solution to something we are perhaps over complicating.

 

[I just noticed this is my 1,000th post on the forum.  It only seems like yesterday I joined.  Just shows how many opinions I have.  If I post enough of them I'm eventually going to get something right, surely!]

I wonder if the offensive structure and positioning isn't there, though; and that's a reason why we take an age to do anything. (And perhaps evidence of the players being left to their own devices?) I can't count the number of times I see very few passing options on the ball for a player; it should be instinctive that the players know what they're doing. Moving it quicker would certainly help.

I think you underestimate your track record when it comes to posts...  

Congratulations!

2 hours ago, DMAA said:

I think Allan is an excellent player. Sadly Lennon is a good manager and is getting the best out of him.

 

Yes that was a game where Windass's qualities were really utilised.

Allan's numbers were apparently quite good at Dundee too, although the end product wasn't there.

1 minute ago, DMAA said:

I think it's mainly because he doesn't have a natural position. He clearly has a lot of ability. He's very fast, is very good at making runs and is an outstanding finisher. The problem is that those are striker's qualities but he's played in a creative midfieler's role.

 

The kind of player who would excel in that position is Scott Allan. Brilliant touch, has a centre of gravitity that allows him to change direction very quickly with the ball glued to his feet and slices defences open with an incisive pass at ease, and can score long shots occasionally.

 

Windass doesn't have those qualities, I think he should be played as a striker with Dorrans coming in in his position. We have 3 good strikers in Morelos, Cummings and Windass so I'd like to see how we do with a front 2.

That's perhaps something we need -- I would still take Allan if he was let go...  

However, I think there are different ways to play the No.10 role; it's not necessarily a 'creative' position. I think we have a perception of the No.10 being a specific role, but it's a lot more varied than that. Windass is not, and never was, a 'creative' player; he's more a second-striker. 

He played really well up front in that 4-diamond-2 against Aberdeen. 

16 minutes ago, DMAA said:

I agree with that

 

And I agree with this.

 

I think with both Cummings and Morelos making runs and pulling the centre backs places they don't want to go and offering through ball options for our midfielders we'd suddenly see space opening up for everyone.

 

I think there's a false notion that the more creative midfielders that are on the pitch the more clear cut chances a team will create, whereas I think this undermines the role of the striker's runs.

 

I've got nothing against 4-2-3-1, I just think we have two very good strikers after a number of failures (at home) it's time to see if we create more chances with both of them on. I doubt we'd have put 4 past Falkirk with a 4-2-3-1.

I agree, I just think we're missing a step. We need a better structure to allow those strikers to make their runs; supporting runs, covering positions, better defensive structure -- not formation --, a clearer idea of what they need to do. I do feel like it's 'off-the-cuff', as if the players are left to their own devices. I hate that; everything I read about modern football has pre-conceived and -drilled player movements and pressing traps, etc.; If you watch Man City, if one player moves position, then another will move to compensate. 

Similarly, though, there is a mistaken belief that more strikers equals more goals. That's a complete fallacy to me.

For me, it's not really about the formation; It's a good basic structure, fitting the players, but it's how we play it. We are far too linear in our approaches -- it may as well be a 4-4-2! It's always one winger and full-back combination trying to fashion and cross or shot. This is easy to deal with most of the time.

We need to get in behind; we need more dynamic play. We need triangles as opposed to simple linear overlaps from the full-back.

This is the heart of Murty's deficiencies, for me. A formation switch will not change this.

Leicester's game against Chelsea, although they didn't win, showed how to play a more dynamic game; it was just a basic, simple difference -- and that was with a 4-4-2! One of the CM, or one of the forwards would come wide to create little triangles with the Full-back and Winger; sometimes both. All the play was diagonal, not linear, to give Chelsea something to think about. The aim was to get in behind. It wasn't brilliantly executed, but it shows how they way a team approaches their build-up is much more important than formation in trying to create chances. 

Even Barca play 4-4-2 nowadays, but you'll never see them play in a linear, static fashion: one wide player comes inside to make a diamond at times with Paulinho --PAULINHO, the Tottenham DM reject! -- playing the No.10; Paulinho is the worst 'creative' No.10 you'll ever see.

Anyway, my point -- perhaps poorly made -- is that the formation is not the issue, but the way we play it. Tottenham -- another, final example -- play a 4-2-3-1, but you'd never accuse them of being static, linear or struggling to break a side down.  

1 hour ago, MacK1950 said:

Numbers bloody numbers give us back the days when football was a free flowing game,no zones, players interchanging naturally without the help of clip-boards/diagrams,videos etc.

Suppose there is no harm in dreaming

It went out of fashion when teams with "numbers [...] clip-boards/diagrams, videos" humped them. 

1 minute ago, Bluedell said:

Would Pep have done as well at Killie as Clarke? An interesting question.

Very interesting question.

I don't think so. 

Case in point, Stoke: they propelled up the leagues with a basic approach, brutal to watch but effective percentage football; but once they tried to develop further, and they made improvements all-over, but ultimately failed. I think there's a ceiling with that style of football; it only takes you so far. You'd then need a Guardiola.

Leipzig are the only side to really propel up the leagues and then challenge for the title. Their style is completely unlike Clarke; its all fast transitions -- a style that already had pedigree at the top end of the table with Salzburg. (I've said before but Salzburg would be a terrific model for us.)

 I've waffled there...  

15 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Will his team not have done that on occasions this season?

 

I take your point and of course there's a risk but there's always going to be issues with any manager that is proposed.

That's very true. 

Taking a quick look at the games you'd expect them to 'dominate', it's either a tight game that ends in a 1-0 win or a draw, or it's a narrow victory (3-2 comes up a lot). But that's against teams that will sit-in, but will tend to have a go much more than against us or Celtic.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't get past that 'style' -- for want of a better word -- difference.