Rousseau

Shame for the lad. He played well on his day -- not too often, to be fair -- despite not quite finding his best role.

Perhaps another reason to recall Halliday? I'm not a huge fan of Halliday, but he's energetic and won't shy from a tackle, which may suit one of the 'side midfield' -- not sure what to call them? -- roles in the diamond. I always thought he was better in a more advanced role, as opposed to the DM role he'd been playing.

Actually, one of the forward roles may suit M'OH too! (They're always world beaters when they're out of the team!)

The boy Barker that Hibs have on loan from Man City should be on our radar if he can play like he did last night on a regular basis.

I was thinking they picked up Barker, and we picked up Nemane...

I agree with much of what you've said there Rousseau, but the one thing I couldn't understand is why we played wide with our defence from the start. There seemed to be a 20-25 yard gap between each of our back 4. Surely, in a narrow formation we play closer together. I couldn't work out why we thought this was the best tactic at the back. It meant they could quite easily play through balls for their quick wide men. We don't have the pace at the back to take those risks, so it seemed a strange one. At first I thought it was maybe to allow us to give some relief to the midfielders by playing it wide to our fullbacks, but we weren't doing that either. I've no doubt Murty and JJ had a reason for it because it was deliberate. We've not had that spacing at the back in any other game this season.

Perhaps just a result of their Wing-backs hugging the touchline? Caught in two minds between shutting out the middle for those through-balls, and covering the switch to the Wing-backs?

Yeah, that was the reason why we lost the goal on Saturday. A weakness in that formation that oppositions may pounce on if we continue with it without making adjustments.

We could probably allow the far-side Full-back to stay a lot wider, to cover that switch, considering we have such a compact shape.

Once we tackled the tactical deficiencies, I thought John and Tavernier did OK. McCrorie was better than a 6, I thought.

Herrera deserves an extra point or two for doing a job: wasting time, drawing fouls, pressing the defenders etc. He's not the greatest but I thought he was just what we needed there.

Foderingham deserves MotM!

That was an awful performance, especially first-half. McCrorie was the only one winning his battles; the rest couldn't stand up to the physicality! Barjonas did well too, jinking past a few players. Teenagers?!

I thought we saw some tactical nous from Murty, and I suspect JJ. (JJ has got management experience, I think?) We started in a 4-4-2 diamond, which helped us pack the midfield. We did OK, but we allowed Stevenson to drift from LWB to hit the worst shot I've ever seen! Poor marking. The diamond is quite narrow, and although we tended to 'dominate' the central area, in the sense that we weren't overrun, their 3-5-2 meant they always had a wing-back open. They got in time after time.

Once Miller went off we switched to a 4-2-3-1 which burst the bubble in terms of the game plan, and we couldn't get near them. Morelos was dominated physically, and numerically.

Second half we switch to a 4-1-4-1, mathcing them in the middle, with Holt and Barjonas man-making the central pair and McCrorie picking up drifters into the hole. It worked better, but they still got in on the Right-hand side, mostly because of Windass' inexplicable inability to track a man -- inexplicable because he knows how to make those runs himself! --; he keeps "tackling" from behind whereas at least Candeias gets in front of his man.

Then, when Hibs brought Barker (a winger) on, going more with a three up front (4-3-3?), they seemed to really dominate. Barker was not marked closely enough, just because of the numbers in the middle. Murty/JJ then went to a back three, meaning Tavernier and John matched up with their WBs and Big Bates helped out with any aerial balls.

The intent from Murty/JJ was terrific. But, we need to be better at keeping the ball, and being able to play through teams. I thought we knew what we were doing at the start, in the diamond although it wasn't perfect, but once we were forced to change shape, we seemed to lose all confidence about what we were supposed to do.

Herrera's first touch is mince, but he did well to win fouls, chase down defenders and waste time. Just what we needed.

Pete mentioned it, but it really annoyed me how Foderingham can get booked for one slight instance of time-wasting when every 'keeper is time-wasting against us from 20 minutes in without judgement!

You beat me to it!

Looks like the diamond again, but with Windass perhaps playing at the tip (a la Pena). Added goal threat with Morelos up top. I hope Barjonas steps up, as it looks a tad lightweight in midfield.

[tweet]941016856554549250[/tweet]

I'm dreading this. Scummy wee club, scummy fans and scummy manager, that always -- at least recently -- do well against us.

Unfortunately there is an element of truth there: some of these names are so far above us!

i think this thread should be remamed "clutching at straws!

Seeing all these managerial names, the prospect of a progressive Scandinavian coach on this thread, only to finish with Ronny Deila.

Ashley? Can we but hope...

Castle Greyskull is from the Masters of the Universe cartoon - but it's a typically f*cking stupid attempt at an insult since that's actually where He-Man and the good guys are based. Skeletor and the villains in the story hang out on Snake Mountain - which I would imagine to be somewhere in the scummy East End of Eternia.

 

Sorry - I'm of the right age to have soaked all that nonsense up.

Nonsense?

I think they do have players to at least have an attack minded go. Why Juan Mata didn't start is beyond me. They missed Pogba but should have had Mata, Martial and Rashford as the 3 behind the No.9 (Zlatan for me). I actually think they should have played Shaw at LB also, a more natural defender.

 

I think Man Utd are in a false position, they haven't been nearly as good as their 2nd position suggests, its just Liverpool and Arsenal are too inconsistent plus Spurs hit a blip.

But, if they "have an attack minded go", they'll get ripped apart! Man City would just pass round Zlatan and Mata - they're slow as stop! For me, it's have a go and get ripped to shreads, or close the game down and maybe sneak a win. Those are the only options for Mourinho's philosophy against Guardiola's -- I understand the criticism because its Man Utd, but they have to be realistic.

I think Mourinho is consistent. They are a good side; they'll beat most others. However, I agree they'll need others to be off the pace to win titles now.

Agree about Pep not signing Pogba and Lukaku. The Man United policy is they want to sign the players who are up their with the nest in their position. Pep's is to sign players that fit his style of play.

 

Mourinho just wants to go out, spend shit loads of money on the best player and fit them into his team.

I wouldn't got that far. He has a good track record of recruitment. He buys what he needs. At his second spell at Chelsea he bought specific players to win the league: Costa, Fabregas, Matic. He is good at recruitment, it's just that he'll never have his teams playing a Guardiola game because that's not his style; he can't do it.

Just to be clear, I dont blame him for the goal either, it is just that yet again our opponent has scored from 100% of the on-target attempts. It seems to happen an awful lot.

Ah, ok.

Yes, the stats do suggest we concede few shots, but they tend to be 'good' shots, which is just poor. (I know you'll appreciate that... )

Mourinho is a master of deflection.

 

Manchester derby: Jose Mourinho has water & milk thrown at him in row, Mikel Arteta cut

 

------------------

 

Manchester United manager Jose Mourinho had water and milk thrown at him and Manchester City coach Mikel Arteta suffered a cut head during a post-match row..............

 

.........The incident started when Mourinho responded to what he perceived to be over the top celebrations.

 

 

Full article

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42306141

He's built a career on that! I think it's a good think, though; the best always deflected from their team's failings (Sir Alex, Walter etc.). But, as you say, it'll only last so long without success.

Then I'd question the Man Utd board's decision to employ Mourinho and would view him as a relatively short-term occupant of the MU dug-out because the support want more stylish and attacking football and the club have the resources to make it possible. The name and CV of Mourinho buys time but not infinite time.

 

In a way you could compare the rational for Mourinho at MU and proposed McInnes at Rangers.

 

Short term stability needed but fresh appt required within 2/3 years.

Yes, I'd agree with that. Mourinho is a solid manager, but I think his style is on the wain -- It certainly dominated in it's time. It's not enough anymore. It will bring stability, and they'll finish, what, top 2-3 consistently? Maybe even the odd title if teams are off the pace.

I was content with DM's name being flouted because of that stability. However, I did say elsewhere that I doubt he'd take us forward. You're right with the comparison -- I had never considered that, consciously.

I had McCrorie as MOTM after 20 minutes, it was clear we were well off the pace and were back to our inconsistent worst. Wes had two things to do all game, keep out their goal, and catch (or punch to the halfway line) that cross in injury time. He failed with both, would get no more than a 4 from me. His distribution is still slow and inaccurate.

 

It says a lot that Pena (hooked at half time after a poor display) still managed to get the same mark as Captain Calamity who played the full 90 mins. I think that is about right, with Holt, Candieas and Windass all lucky to have escaped the half time axe. (It was never going to be Miller chopped lets face it)

 

I thought John had a stinker as well, and Candieas crossing was really poor, rarely hitting the intended target. He doesnt look up before crossing! He gets into good positions for crosses, works hard enough, but really needs to work on his accuracy.

 

On the face of it, only sheer grit and desire got us the win. I am actually delighted about that because those basic mindset skills have been sadly lacking for far too long, so well done to Murty for ensuring the players came out second half and upped their game a bit. I was happily chanting 3IAR at full time, and left happy at the win. yes we played a lot better against Hamilton and got nothing, but the result always has the final say in how your mood is at the end, so I was a happy frozen bear heading home.

I'm not sure I'd blame Wes for the goal. It is a header from a position he should be collecting, but I think the defenders should have dealt with it well before.

I agree with the rest... mostly.

I don't think McArthur is the type of player to build a team around either, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be signed and made captain. You wouldn't build a team around Lee Wallace either. But he's a step up from most at the club just now, he's only 30 so he's got four or five years ahead of him at SPFL level, he's experienced and he's a better midfielder than almost anyone else in the league.

 

I remain unconvinced by the Director of Football position but it'll be interesting to see what happens in January. We're clearly lacking in the wide areas and whoever becomes manager needs to address that. So if we sign any wide players in Jan we'll know it's the DoF who is pulling the strings on that. It also means we're not looking for a 'manager' but for a coach. McInnes is most definitely a manager.

Fair enough. Captain implies main role, whereas I'm not sure he's that sort of player. He'd be a good addition, but I'm not sure I'd burst the bank to get him.

McInnes doesn't quite fit for me either -- and that's forgetting the fact I think he's crap!

I disagree totally that a DOF should have the say on players coming in. He should be identifying them and putting them before the manager and then the manager has the final say on whether the player is contracted or not. What is the point in bringing a new manager in if you are going to tie his hands playing the same way with the same players. If the manager wants certain players then it is up to the DOF to do the work to find out if they are available and all the other contract work. The manager is responsible for the team so also responsible who plays in it. It is up to the DOF to make sure he has a manager that works in the vision of the club and if they have a good relationship then many decisions will be done together.

I agree -- that's why I said maybe "not [...] specific targets [or players]", merely player profiles that may be available on the cheap or free etc.

Couple of 'big' names will be going out.

Very tasty!

Only if Mourinho was rigid to the point of stupidty.

 

I don't think United have got the players to play the way Guardiola likes.

It's just their styles. They're not going to change.

It's not rigidity per se, it's just that he prefers a more solid base, and is more reactive. He can't get his teams to play expansive football; it's just not his style. I don't understand the criticism of this though? If he plays open, expansive football his teams would be ripped apart by City. The only way he can win is to close the game down. A bit like us and Them. Signing the best players won't help (unless they're significantly better). McInnes won't ever have us playing like Rodgers -- they're from entirely different schools.

Without a permanent manager January is surely going to pass us by? By all means extend the contracts of promising young players but beyond that can we really approach players at other clubs, indeed can we even offer new contracts to out of contract players at Rangers like Wilson? McArthur is an attractive signing, I'd consider approaching him, offering our highest salary and appointing him captain, but he's not going to sign without knowing who the manager is. Indeed would Moult, or Walker either? What happens if we bring in a manager who just doesn't fancy them? It's another consequence of our inability to appoint a manager.

 

I'm far from convinced a Director of Football signing players without a manager is going to end well.

McArthur? Really? He's a good wee player, but he's not a 'main' player; he's a supporting player. You can't build a team around him.

I think the point of a DoF is to take the transfers away from the regular managerial changes, so we have players that will be suited to any manager that comes in, which the DoF should be appointing. (Athough, if DM was the choice, I'm not sure they've thought this part through!) There may not be specific targets without a manger, but there should be player profiles, and if such a player was available, then I hope the DoF goes forward. The DoF structure works in so many instances, but our unfamiliarity with it will lead to some teething problems.