Rousseau

Loved the way Forrester and Tavernier ran straight to the fans at the goal.

Murty deserves a lot of praise for the way he's conducted himself over the last few weeks. Performances against ICT and Dundee were poor, but subsequent performances were much better. Today we went into the game with a different mindset; to defend compactly and zonally in an unusual -- for us -- 4-4-1-1, and break on them. We didn't really break that often, but we created a couple of gilt-edged chances. We showed a lot of character too. He's dealt with the press very well too.

We've done well. A low, zonal block in the centre has forced them wide for the most part. The only time they got inside was when Holt miss-kicked the ball gifting Armstrong a clear shot at goal; 'keeper should be doing better, though it was struck very well. We can't pass up chances like Waghorn's. Sitter. Brown is a disgrace. Flailing arms throughout the game, then jumping/diving when a Rangers player gets close without any contact.

Ah... forgot he was his agent. Duel roles?

SSN has us playing a 4-3-3 with Hodson as DM and Tavernier at RB... I doubt it somehow?

Just noticed: with Pedro Mendes! Backroom staff?

He's in attendance: [tweet]840876657527422977[/tweet]

I don't wish to be indelicate, but the p*** is running down the inside of my legs - the symptoms of battle fever?

Mmm... looks like he has gone with Tavernier in midfield, like our last Old Firm game; or perhaps, a back-five?

The question should have been: who could/should have had the job ahead of Pedro, within reason? FdB, Van Marwijk, Rutten and Bergkamp and Numan were not realistic. And the others, can you not just apply the same criticisms that you've applied to Caixinha?

Posted it in the other thread, but it's better here: He was clearly in Qatar for the money. You can also look at his experience previously and say, 'he's experienced big crowds and expectations in Portugal (Sporting Lisbon), Greece (Panathanaikos), Romania (Rapid Bucharest) and Mexico (Santos)'. They may not be one of the Big Four/Five leagues, but neither are we. We have huge expectation, but so do Sporting Lisbon, Panathanaikos, Rapid and Santos; some of which are in far more competitive leagues than ours. It's all about context: you can focus on the above, or that he managed a club in Qatar in front of 400 fans. Lets look at the positive case: - Vastly experienced in several countries; - Disciplinarian; - Tactician, with a keen eye on detail; - Recommended by Mourinho -- no to us, but has been in the past; - Bit of a temper and aggression; - Doesn't suffer the media lightly; - Done his training badges in Scotland, so he "knows the Scottish game" (for all the use that is...); - Clear attacking playing philosophy, but able to change to suit the game situation; - Won titles in a competitive Mexican league; - Wants to win at all costs, and I quote, "Defeat is the same as death". There is a positive case; you just have to look for it.

He was clearly in Qatar for the money. You can also look at his experience previously and say, 'he's experienced big crowds and expectations in Portugal (Sporting Lisbon), Greece (Panathanaikos), Romania (Rapid Bucharest) and Mexico (Santos)'. They may not be one of the Big Four/Five leagues, but neither are we. We have huge expectation, but so do Sporting Lisbon, Panathanaikos, Rapid and Santos; some of which are in far more competitive leagues than ours. It's all about context: you can focus on the above, or that he managed a club in Qatar in front of 400 fans. Lets look at the positive case: - Vastly experienced in several countries; - Disciplinarian; - Tactician, with a keen eye on detail; - Recommended by Mourinho -- no to us, but has been in the past; - Bit of a temper and aggression; - Doesn't suffer the media lightly; - Done his training badges in Scotland, so he "knows the Scottish game" (for all the use that is...); - Clear attacking playing philosophy, but able to change to suit the game situation; - Won titles in a competitive Mexican league; - Wants to win at all costs, and I quote, "Defeat is the same as death". There is a positive case; you just have to look for it.

Yes, it says after Sunday's game he'll return to his role as U20's Coach. I'd like to see him stick around, and eventually get a role with the first-team. He's done well with what was left of him.

Who did fans think we were going to get? A manager with a track record of winning trophies? I hate to say it, but I really doubt they'd be turning up here. And who are these British Coaches with better CV's? Rowett? Monk? Monk would've been a good option, but hasn't won anything and is out of our league. Rowett has done well with Burton and Birmingham -- although it was barely a season -- but doesn't really have a progressive approach to the game; effective, but not something we should be bothering with if we are targeting Europe. What we need is a young coach with modern, progressive ideas about the game, with a bit of fire in his belly. I think Caixinha ticks the boxes there. Ok, so he doesn't have a track record of winning things, but he's predominantly been at mid-table clubs. Although, he has won trophies in Mexico, which -- thanks to Uilleam's posted article from the Guardian -- is a highly competitive league. We also need someone that is comfortable in a DoF structure, which I hope will be implemented sooner rather than later.

It's just a framework; it doesn't tell us how he'll play. For me, TP states that every team must be well-drilled in the 4 "Moments of Play" (Organise themselves defensively, transition quickly and efficiently from Defense to Attack, Organise themselves Offensively, and then transition themselves from Attack to Defense again) and every training session -- there will be no sessions purely for fitness -- is geared towards those scenario's. Mourinho uses the framework, but he's clearly more interested in the Defensive Organisation and the quick Transition to Attack. Caixinha, from what I've read, is more interested in the Attacking Organisation, but appreciates the importance of Defensive Organisation. It's just a way of thinking about the game. You can contrast Mourinho's counter-attacking sides (Defensive Organisation and quick Attacking Transitions) with Klopp's Liverpool who play entirely on the Transitions, both Attacking and Defensive Transitions. Klopp's sides don't have the best Defensive Organisation, and maybe lack the Offensive Organisation too, in the sense that they can struggle to break down a side when they're set up.

One of the greatest comebacks, but I cannot stand them either so my opinion is, of course, that they cheated/were lucky -- 2 soft penalties as you'll ever see. I was gutted when that 6th went in -- I kept hoping to see an offside flag. B*****ds

That would be the outcome, ideally. I would also hope it means our players will be well-drilled. I also like the idea that it is just a framework, where a Coach can apply a defensive approach and/or an attacking approach depending on the situation.

I'm now convinced it's just what we need! This is a big problem; guys stuck in the past and unwilling to change and look to the future. A DoF may not be a cure-all but sticking to what we've done is hardly the best move.

Tactical Periodisation is quite interesting. It's main concern is transitions from the Moments of Play (Defensive Organisation, Transition from Defense to Attack, Offensive Organisation and Transition from Attack to Defense) and an integrated approach to training whereby every training session is adapted to include game scenarios to help the above transitions.

I have read that Caixinha likes to attack but it seems that he is more pragmatic than I originally thought. That pragmatism probably suits us more with our need to win. It sounds like he has an attacking philosophy, but is a stickler for organisation and recognises that need to adapt, which is a lot more suitable -- potentially -- than MW's wildly idealistic approach.

[tweet]839099395207544833[/tweet]

It's a simple game.

I don't understand the criticism that he [Caixinha] doesn't know the Scottish game. What is that, the long ball? What makes the Scottish game so difficult to comprehend? We get pumped by European sides in the first round of the Europa League every year.

You know, I always thought Wilson was the better option because he currently works at Southampton, whereas Mitchell is/was at Tottenham which isn't the best example of the DoF. However, doing a bit of reading I do agree that Mitchell seems the better option. He's hampered at Tottenham with very little control. Moreover, he actually had a helping hand in developing Southampton's model, whereas Wilson has just been able to use it, in a way. We need someone to actually develop the model. Both are good candidates, but I now agree that Mitchell shades it because he can develop the model with us; which is what we need.

Garner's was bad the way it turned out, but it wasn't intentional; he was going to boot the ball off the player... hard. It's something I see quite regularly in Scottish football tbh. Foderingham has misjudged the ball and probably deserved to get red-carded for it. It was close, so it's understandable that the refs missed it. Quite simply it was a Penalty. However, as McCann said in the studio, not for the tug of the shirt, but for the stamp -- probably the wrong word -- on Toral's foot which caused him to lose his balance.