Rousseau

I think They are the perfect example of how wrong your first point is. A manager with a modern style can transform a team. I'm not saying they are all good players, but I believe a manager would transform the team. Yes, I do get annoyed when people say manager X, Y or Z is not right, without any examples to the contrary. To be honest, I don't know. But, I'm not willing to throw my lot in with any old name, that happens to have done a job at another club with very different circumstances. I think Preud'homme would've been a good shout, but I don't know if he's a viable option. Anderlecht destroyed Them in the most recent game -- after they had changed managers -- and I don't think Belgian football is that far ahead of us, in terms of the league -- perhaps their players are better. The Scandanavian managers are quite progressive. I believe there are better options out there than a free British manager. Fair enough; we can agree to disagree. Happy Birthday!

A "good style of football" doesn't mean we are open to the point of suicide. A good style of football can be the German way of the high press, whereby they concede few because they are aggressive and score more in the process. Being defensive -- although it is important -- does not win you games. Pulis' win% barely gets over 40%; that's not good enough for us. Moreover, we don't need more quality -- although I'll take it! -- to play better, winning, football; we need a manager/coach that can implement a modern style. Being tough to beat is not enough. It doesn't have to be either/or, Defend or Attack.

It wasn't aimed at you, as I saw his name doing the rounds on Twitter. He knows how to defend, I'll give him that, but he hasn't got a scooby how to win and play football. Four Centre-halfs and one in midfield? No thanks. It has to be a foreign manager for me; but one that knows how to win. Not sure how realistic that is, though.

The names get more desperate every time I log on. Tony Pulis?

We should be scooping up the cream of the crop at this level. I see the influence of the DoF in this strategy, if the article is to be believed -- not a guarantee.

That was my point -- perhaps poorly articulated. There is always an element of misfortune at the time, but it happens too often to us, suggesting we're the cause of it.

There is an element of misfortune, but it happens too often against us.

Oh well, I'll make an early start on the GPL scores; shouldn't take long...

Looks like a 4-3-3, the way it is written out in a following tweet.

[tweet]942031807742119936[/tweet]

He'll pull a Marvin and play through it...

Stupid Yellow cards is a good topic to discuss, but there is no need to single out Windass.

I don't think he is a left-sided player, naturally. He's been better through the middle. We are short on the left. I agree he doesn't deserve to be left out.

I don't recall him being booked? When was it?

Great pressing at the start, but I'm still annoyed he didn't slide in Windass!! Holt's first touch is superb, and his ability to pass forward is vital for us. We've actually got three players that can pass well now, in Jack, McCrorie and Holt.

He's not been playing Left Wing, though. Actually, we don't even have a Left Winger in this diamond formation!

I wouldn't say no, but I actually think our defence is passable at present. I think our most pressing needs are more options up front and especially in midfield.

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!)

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

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?

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!