Rousseau

[tweet]849226273360678912[/tweet]

Oh... just noticed it will be Garner up top with Waghorn instead of Miller. I think Garner deserves a run in the team. Halliday looks to be a straight swap for Toral.

I quite like the youngsters coming in; better that than other players playing out of position.

Also, it seems Senderos was injured so couldn't come on at the weekend. It really was a perfect storm. We have been saying for the last 2 seasons that we're very light at Full-back.

[tweet]849225187358896128[/tweet]

I assume it will be Foderingham in goal?

The changes were forced, but I don't think changing like-for-like (Hill for Senderos, or Senderos on for a Full-back) would've seen a better result; it would've been inferior players playing out of position, with the same problems as the first-half. It was better to go gung-ho, with another striker in there and giving Toral more space to play. It could've cost us, but it almost payed off too.

We were completely bullied that first half and failed to win the second ball. I'm getting sick of saying that with this group of players.

Abject first half, absolutely terrifying, gung-ho second half that almost paid off, but also almost blew up in our face.

 

My left ventricle isn't going to hold out for the season if we do that every week!

In peace there's nothing so becomes a man

As modest stillness and humility:

But when the blast of war blows in our ears,

Then imitate the action of the tiger;

Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,

Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;

Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;

All the changes were forced. To be honest, if we approached the second-half the same as the first with those players -- Halliday, MOH and Toral at the back -- we would probably have been beaten; forcing them back helped ease the pressure on the back four -- other than the scary counters! -- and allowed us to start the half on the front-foot. PC changed it completely, going gung-ho; it could've worked, but it could've came back to haunt us.

Yeah, try it against anyone else and we could've been on the end of a hiding.

Motherwell were dirty; wasting time at every opportunity and putting in reckless and dangerous tackles every two minutes.

I think it was a perfect storm of changes. Wallace went off sick, so Halliday was the only replacement. Hodson was poor, giving nothing offensively, so the only option was a "winger" in MOH. And then Garner for Hill is a twist, to get Toral more space and Waghorn a partner.

Crazy.

It looked like a simple 4-4-2 with MOH and Halliday replacing both Full-backs, and then Garner came on for Hill, meaning Toral went into defense:

But when we attacked, Halliday stayed back and MOH went forward to create:

so, 3-1-4-2. I think the idea was to get Toral more space to play forward passes, which worked, and to give Waghorn a better partner in Garner. MOH and McKay were the wide-men; MOH couldn't quite attack the Full-back as well as McKay as he kept coming inside.

It was gung-ho -- never has a formation or performance been defined as well.

We were poor first-half; bullied in everything. We weren't second-half; We risked it defensively for more players in forward areas. It might have worked on another day.

Ooft! Two changes at Half-Time. Hodson and Wallace off?! Wallace with sickness. I don't know how they will fit in? Halliday at LB?

Garner on too!?

We keep getting bullied; McKay, Hodson -- who has been garbage, putting team-mates under pressure with loose balls -- Miller, Holt and even Hyndman are being out-muscled in everything they do.

Should we have had that penalty? I couldn't really see it.

[tweet]848158747444883456[/tweet]

I thought it was as is, until I read the Rangers tweet saying there were two changes: Hodson and Kiernan in for the suspended Tavernier and injured Wilson -- the Rangers site has Kiernan as "the big englishman"! Halliday on the bench.

Looking forward to it!

It's 2-1 Liverpool coming up for Half-time, with three typical Liverpool goals: sublime counter-attacking from Mane, Firmino and Coutinho; and then they concede from a corner.

It's a moot point because I don't think the transfer will happen, but it was the way he went about it, with the conference etc. We all would've accepted that he had to move for the good of his career -- like Davis and Edu -- but to come out with the New Club crap and to leave without the club getting anything was unnecessary. I always watch out for Davis' performances but I couldn't care less about Naismith.

As a player, he would improve the team, but we'd only get a year or two out of him. Having Naismith instead of Miller in the first-XI would improve us significantly. I don't know if that would make up for what he did -- I may come round if he performed well.

I think it's unlikely in any case.

The majority of the suggestions can be linked to the McLeish era -- I forgot how bad some of them were!

Thomson seems to be one of the few that we would all agree on.

I can't believe the difference in the man compared to the player; aggressive, almost dirty player, who loved a strong tackle compared to the mild-mannered, intelligent man. He's one of the few I actually enjoy listening to on BT.

That's it published!

Frankie -- let me know if I included the correct scripts this time!

it was the Romans that built Hadrian's wall because they thought the Scottish were wild men so they did not class us as British back then.

They termed any non-Roman as barbarians. They built Hadrian's wall then the Antonine wall (between the Forth and the Clyde) to mark the extent of the empire -- although they had forts all the way up to Inverness -- to keep out the Picts. The Picts are Scottish but we're not all Picts as their territory was limited to the highlands. So, the Lowlands were British to the Romans. Ultimately though, Britannia referred to the whole island of Great Britain for the Romans.

We need to discuss history more often -- this is great! I don't know how we got here, though? Dave King to British identity to the Romans?

Beat me to it!

I welcome the addition of more stats, as I think it helps generate debate; xG in particular looks quite informative.

Fascinating how it predicted Leicester's run.

set piece execution is absolutely central to football and always has been

 

the site of us being unable to take a throw in properly under warburton told us all we needed to know

Yes, corners, throw-ins, free-kicks in and around the box are, but lumping it into the box from the half-way line is unnecessary and just the sign of a team that can't play.

However, like I said, we need to be able to deal with it. I agree our performances from set-pieces has been frustrating. Hopefully we can now deal with them and use them better ourselves.

Efe. For the Lolz.

There are a few first-team regulars at Aberdeen and Hearts that could be worth a punt on; as squad players.

This is very pleasing:

[tweet]846829291446976512[/tweet]

Embarrassingly, the set-piece is the only way -- outside the odd counter -- teams play in Scotland. A foul anywhere near the half-way line and the first thought is to lump it into the box. It's not how the game should be played, but if it is we need to be able to deal with it.