Rousseau

4 minutes ago, DMAA said:

A switch to 4-4-2 at home is a switch away from trying to play through defences (which we routinely fail abjectly at in homes games) to a more direct style of play with Morelos and Cummings giving the midfield options for through balls and crosses etc.

We're pretty direct as it is; get it wide a get a cross in or wangle a shot. 

I'm not sure lumping it in the box from even deeper gives defences in this league anything to worry about?

3 minutes ago, DMAA said:

I don't think Jason Cummings could be described as someone who "gets stuck in"

 

All I've said is this formation hasn't worked at home and I think it's time to try something different. Windass hasn't performed at home and is the obvious candidate to drop out with a switch to 4-4-2. His style of play suits away games far more.

Perhaps my post went too far.

I don't see 'taking the chances' as the issue, it's the 'creation of chances'. I think we can do better with our first-team. A change in formation won't change the way we play. 

4-4-2 is out of the question for me, unless it's a diamond. I think we're asking for trouble with 1 DM -- the other CM will be roaming forward -- and high full-backs on the break. 

I don't think we have the pressing game in the defensive transition to make the 4-4-2 work. It can work -- see Leipzig and Atletico -- but we don't look like we can play it; it needs to be coached. 

22 minutes ago, DMAA said:

This particular home loss is in many ways the worst. Traditionally the losing Old Firm side bounce back and the winning side slip up. The winning side slipped up but we didn't bounce back. We didn't even score.

 

Personally I think it's time to drop the fashionable 4-2-3-1 and go 4-4-2. At least at home. Cummings and Morelos are a complimentary partnership. Difficult to know who to drop but for me it's Windass. He doesn't offer enough aside from scoring.

Take away Windass' goals and we'll have someone who can 'get stuck in'. We'll be in a better position then...  

11 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

I don't think it has to be a different style totally. Good tactics and a good formation works for any team.

 

If I've done my calculations correctly, since Murty has been appointed he's got 40 points from 21 games and Clarke has 38 points from 19 games in the same period, and that's without Clarke having the benefit of a great winter transfer window.

Style was the wrong word. I just don't think it's as easy as it seems. Like I've said several times this morning already, getting a small side punching above their weight does not mean he can get a side challenging for the title. It's easy enough to get a side well-drilled and compact and then counter, but can he break down a well-drilled, compact side? Has he ever done that? His record suggests not. How often do we sit-in and break? We don't because we'd never win games.

8 minutes ago, Ser Barristan Selmy said:

Steve Clarke is better than what we have and about as good a candidate as what we could get. The Man Utd, Chelsea reference makes no sense.

Ok...

Clarke may well be, but I'm not convinced it's an easy transfer; can he really go from making a small team punch above their weight, to taking on title challengers? It's the same as thinking Dyche is doing well at Burnley so give him the Man Utd or Chelsea job; we both know it doesn't work like that. 

13 hours ago, Ser Barristan Selmy said:

I'm sorry but the penny will never drop to anyone who thinks Murty has any future as our manager. All of the embarrassing defeats are one thing, but back to back defeats against Killie should be an automatic dismissal. The guy in the opposite dugout is a hugely experienced coach with bags of EPL experience. Whether he would come is one thing, but an approach should be made immediately.

 

Case in point: Killie's last 5 games = 11 points whilst we have a pitiful 9. What is their wage bill compared to ours?

It's not as easy as that. Do you really think he'd have us winning titles? I can't see it. It's a whole different ball game from getting a small side punching above their weight.

Dyche is doing well at Burnley, should Man Utd or Chelsea appoint him to improve them? They've both taken about 9 points out of 21 in the League, think of what Dyche could do with Chelsea's budget.

I don't think it's as easy as that: It's a different style of football altogether. 

4 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

I could name a few names and derail the thread and there would be a lot of disagreements with the names I would come up with. 

 

I can think of three who have since got jobs since Murty was appointed that we may have been able to tempt. I can also think of a couple lower league English managers. There is also one in Scotland, who has done well against us this season.

 

However given I wanted PLG and Warburton before they came, what do I know?

You wouldn't be derailing the thread, so...

10 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

Thanks for that.

It's what I do.

Ha! I saw it on Twitter. Mental.

Everyone's like, 'just don't look at it'.

3 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

Mulumbu stands out at Killie the same way Caniggia did at Dundee.  

8 minutes ago, Bill said:

We sure do spend a lot of time yearning for what probably isn’t available to us. 

 

We got Souness, we got Advocaat and we got Le Guen. The first was in an entirely different era. The second needed absurd money and lasted five minutes. The third was a disaster and didn’t last five seconds. No one else had significant managerial profile before they became our manager and, given our finances and the league we play in, there’s almost no chance of acquiring a high-calibre, proven manager again. So before dismissing Murty it might be wiser to think of the manager he has yet to become and fret less over the unobtainable. 

I can't argue with that, but Murty is too inexperienced. To became the manager he may become -- he may well become a good one -- he has to learn the ropes first; he can't learn the ropes here, IMO.

Our home record is poor, however, I was dismayed to hear jeering and anxiety after 15 minutes yesterday; that can't help. 15 minutes!?

Murty has not had his apprenticeship; he's not learned from a proper manager; he's just been given a youth coach role then straight into this role. 

It's not something we didn't already know. I'm not sure why there is this sudden 'realisation' that he's not good enough?

Mulumu played well, but the only reason he looks so good is because of the compact team around him; put him in the Rangers or Celtic sides and he'd look lost. 

Holt would look like the white Mulumbu if we played that way; but we can't play that way or we'd never win a game.

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

What's to say you're not just seeing whqt you want to see?

 

The truth is probably somewhere inbetween.

That's true; I've admitted as much before.

His detractors seem to be very vehement in their vitriol, though. (Vitriol is perhaps harsh but I like the alliteration...  ) 

1 minute ago, cooponthewing said:

We all have blind spots at times. I had one with Pedro (I still wake up in the middle of the night sweating) and there are a few on here with one for Windass. 

In your opinion...

You're just seeing what you want to see.

Arrogant attitude? Have you looked in the mirror? 

35 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Probably true.  But many others see the same thing.

Yes, and many don't.

3 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Murphy and Candeias are also hit and miss but their effort cannot be faulted.

That's subjective; you're seeing what you want to see.

Are there any standout, British-based candidates that we could go for?

None come to mind.

21 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Because he's in a creative role and we created nothing.  We all know he is very capable but he goes missing a lot, particularly at Ibrox.

And what about Murphy and Candeias yesterday?

He's in a 'creative' position, but he doesn't play a creative role; he's not that type.

We could say the same about every player in the team, though -- outside Docherty, perhaps. 

I don't understand why Windass seems to have this particular attention and dislike thrown his way. 

I want a talented coach over experience, to be honest. 

But, of course, they have to have some sort of track record of improving teams. 

I want a German (They've promoted young managers with talent, Klopp, Tuchel, Nagelsmann, Tadesco (Schalke) etc. all without any real experience; I think that's the way to go). Tuchel's still available, but he's out of our reach. And Nagelsmann (Hoffenheim) is available in the summer, but again, he's out of our reach.

It's a really difficult decision.

I don't really know what level we're browsing in. Is it Tuchel, or McInnes? Or is it somewhere in between?

It is a big decision.

The role was thrust upon Murty, but we all knew he wasn't ready. I'm not going to criticise a man who didn't want the job and is not ready for it; he had only just started as a youth coach. 

He's still done well: he's got us to a stage where we can compete with most sides -- outwith the situation rbr outlined above, the ability to break extremely compact sides down; it's not easy. 

The semi will be different because Celtic will not be sitting-deep; that's not Rodgers' style. This result only dents our chances of gaining second -- which is still the target.   

I don't -- and never did -- want him as permanent manager, but I'll thank him for the work done. 

We don't really have a clue.

It's some vague wing-play, but it's not quick enough so they get back in shape easily. They are extremely compact, so we're not getting through.

Ugh.

Killie are extremely compact, and we're struggling to break through.

The only way is to let them bunch up on one wing, then quickly switch it to the under-loaded wing; but we've not got a free pivot to switch the play quickly enough.

Murphy is struggling.