[FT] Hearts 2 - 0 Rangers

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I don't think that English league 1 is below SPFL level. And anyway they haven't failed in the sense that they are being relegated. They might yet end up second for all we know - which is about the level of English league 1. I think "failed to step up to the level of challenging for the SPFL" would be more accurate. Most players in any league are not challenging for the title, though, be it League 1 or SPFL.

 

That's a fair criticism of my generalisation, Steve.

 

Perhaps we could agree on "step up to challenging for Europe".

[johnnyk 158]

Actually, I think we're pretty much in agreement here. part of stepping up to SPFL level must indeed be working harder than was necessary to win games at a lower level; and part is having the required skill.

 

Do you genuinely believe that Tavernier, Kiernan, Windass, Crooks, Garner, have the necessary level of skill to play at SPFL level, never mind Europe if we get there?

 

Very much so, Tav was one of our best players last season and the new signings are still settling in so they need more time. They have all shown good potential to make it IMO and are younger players so they have time to improve. It's now up the coaching staff and themselves to progress further. If they want it bad enough that's another matter!

[calscot 0]

I really don't see the point of this question, unless you are suggesting a conspiracy against us?

 

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, it could easily be unconscious (or even conscious) conditioning. If nothing else there is great evidence of them attempting to condition the referees to be more favourable to them and worse to us - it even resulted in a referee strike. The question is whether it succeeded.

[calscot 0]

I actually think that last nights long ball tactic was one of the major failures, we don't know if this was a tactic from MW or just the way the game played.

 

Far too many long balls from the back went straight to opposition players. this allowed Hearts to control the game. IMHO, if we had played more on the deck, from the back, it would have allowed us much more control over the pace/tempo & put us in the driving seat.

 

This is something I pointed out after the Celtic semi final last season (although some were too busy denying it even happened in front of their very eyes to actually discuss it, and weirdly I was insulted for condoning long the long ball with Ally and condemning it with Warbs, when actually my consistent view was that we used it too much under Ally and not enough under Warbs - they didn't seem to get I was actually criticising the quality, not the quantity. Which shows how little some people listen when they just want to have a go at me personally).

 

My theory for the problem is that while the players may be capable of it, they just don't practice it enough - I suspect training is all about passing it on the ground.

 

One thing I found out after trying to play football after a long lay off of about 6 years, was that I had no problem whatsoever with 10-20 yard passes along the ground. From the go, it was easy and I was accurate. However, long balls were trickier and it was something I tried to practice as much as possible in the warm up. It took me a bit of time and repetition to get the power, elevation, direction and spin to a passable level for a kick about. That seems logical. The more distance for the pass, the higher the difficulty factor.

 

So if players aren't practicing and then have to do it in a game then it's not going to be great. Not only that, it's going to be a lot worse under pressure without the practice to make it automatic.

 

If I'm correct (as the evidence suggests) then I see it as a huge failure in the coaching. As we know, any crap team can play the long ball - apparently except us.

 

PS I think the one exception was Kranjcar, who admittedly had less than average exposure to the training regime.

[der Berliner 3,803]

I was actually agreeing with you on your DB remark that there was nothing to be discussed.

 

I was already finished with LB and actually did not stop anyone from emptying some frustration buckets over the players and the manager here, or said that nothing is to be discussed? It is rather interesting how people perceive their own "freedom of speech" / opinion being curbed by someone else's ...

 

NB: Sorry for some thread-necromancy ... haven't been online for the better part of the day.

Edited December 1, 2016 by der Berliner

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

If the argument you're making is that we need more long balls but better ones, you could equally apply that to the short passing. The problem was that the short passing was utterly crap not that it was short.

[calscot 0]

I think we should predominantly play it on the ground when it works well but we should also be good at long balls when we need to, when we want to, or when an opportunity presents itself.

 

We need good clears in defence, we need accurate clears that turn into attack (remember Darchevill and Cousin), we need direct balls from midfield through the middle, diagonal and up the line.

 

Not all the time, not predominantly, but when it's necessary and when it's prudent, and sometimes just to keep them guessing and maybe catch them on the hop. It should be a skillful part of our repertoire that should be second nature on the pitch.

 

Of course we also need to be good at receiving them. Some of the best teams are fantastic at this and it's like velcro football, or a computer game. I though the aforementioned Watenacio duo were also good at this.

 

But all that takes some training ground time and then be included in the managers tactical talk.

[jhunter 0]

its largely irrelevant if we're playing short passes or long

 

its just terrible execution - all of it

 

and everything at less than walking pace

 

the whole team is a shambles right now from the GK out

 

the formation isn't right and neither are the tactics

 

the fact we're still doing it 8 months on from when it stopped working is staggering.

[SteveC 150]

its largely irrelevant if we're playing short passes or long

 

its just terrible execution - all of it

 

and everything at less than walking pace

 

the whole team is a shambles right now from the GK out

 

the formation isn't right and neither are the tactics

 

the fact we're still doing it 8 months on from when it stopped working is staggering.

 

Indeed. Actually the semi final win over the timz (and brilliant though that was even then it was on penalties and they missed an open goal - great though we played) excepted it probably stretched back to cover 2016. I can't recall many good performances this calendar year. A few but not many.

 

Nb I am not for a minute saying we should change manager at this moment in time - I fear that those shouting for that are getting louder but haven't thought things through. As in who do we get and if they are in the same position next year do we again do the same and then who and how long does he get and then.. etc.

Edited December 1, 2016 by SteveC

[der Berliner 3,803]

It should all be done in training. If you can pass your way through a team, do it. If a team presses you from the defence onwards, find an outlet player and use him, or play a long ball. You should be able to adapt your game according to your opposition. You'd hope that if the manager wants a certain system and it doesn't work, the players have enough wits and guts to change their style on the field of play. For much of this season, we've passed the ball far to often, rather than play some quick passes or simply run with the ball into free spaces. Kranjcar's injury is in many ways a nightmare.