Rousseau

A Martinez-Rodgers Old Firm game would end 5-5!

I thought Pedro was kind of in the middle; not enough of either to make a difference. He had his principles but did change it to suit certain games. Clearly he wasn't good at either. It's an interesting point. Clarke would be the obvious pragmatist. It's more short-term, which we could do with. I still prefer to look more long-term. The Idealist would bring a better tactical style, and also build upon our Academy, which is what we really need to do. Even in that article, Rodgers is an Idealist too, so it can clearly work in Scotland.

I'm not convinced Martinez is a realistic option, but a man can dream...

I would be ecstatic with Martinez -- or someone akin to him -- but he'll not be everyone's cup of tea: Roberto Martínez and Brendan Rodgers: the flawed disciples of Pep Guardiola https://www.theguardian.com/football/these-football-times/2016/mar/07/roberto-martinez-brendan-rodgers-pep-guardiola-everton-liverpool It's too long to post, but it's an interesting read.

I was too brief; I meant how in terms of the type of pass and where they are passing and who to etc.

I'm astonished there's even been contact!

Apologies; I stand corrected. Someone posted it was the assistant, and that made sense -- kind of -- as I really can't believe Martinez is a realistic option. Great if true. Even if we're making contact to enquire sounds excellent.

I agree. He has nearly been appointed Swansea and Wigan manager, I think. He's well regarded though, and working with Martinez for so long has to have been good for him. But yes, no experience as a manager. I can't see Martinez being a realistic option.

No. Pep's philosphy is based on Juego de Posicion: were players have specific tasks and responsibilities within a zoned pitch depending on the phase of the game. He literally instructs the players to take up a position and what they must do, and then how the others move to compensate. Up to the 18-yard box where it comes down to the player to put it in the net. Henry has talked about it; how he was yelled at for moving out of his position, despite actually scoring, because it hampered the rest of the team. I'm not criticising Murty; he's done a good job. I agree with your sentiments regarding the Celtic game, although he take the blame too for not being able to change it. I'm just stating compo's Pep analogy was wrong. He is from a school of philosophy that literally instructs the players what to do and where to go. Murty doesn't utilise that philosophy.

I don't think it's him, but his assistant. Graeme Jones. We're not getting Martinez; he's only just started with Belgium and he's out of our league.

Your Pep analogy is wrong: Pep tells them were to go and when, what position to take up, how to pass the ball etc.

Clarke is the stand-out candidate in Scotland, but I have my reservations. He also bought players that he knew personally, which is not a great model -- see Warburton and best-in-the-business McPar-whatever -- but any manager coming in rightly won't have complete control anyway. He can get the best out of players, but I have my doubts whether he can manage a dominant side, in terms of style etc. Who's left? Has Jack Ross at St Mirren done enough? I would suggest not, as he's not got Premiership experience. Alan Archibald has done well at Partick, but he doesn't inspire much confidence. And what market are we shopping in? I don't think we can attract anyone from the EPL, and perhaps some of the Championship. Jovanovic is good, but he's doing well at Fulham and we're unlikely to be able to attract him. Lower down there is Christiansen at Leeds, or formerly, who was doing well until that collapse and won the league in Cyprus. Farke's doing ok at Norwich. The only foreign man mentioned would be Preud'homme, but can we get him? Is he too much of a risk? He's certainly got the track record, a solid 60% win-rate in competitive leagues and has won things in a couple of countries; and he's currently unattached. I don't think we can attract Gio. I really wish I knew what kind of market we're shopping in? Is it EPL, Championship? Second-tier European leagues, like Belgium? I don't know.

I really don't think Murty is getting the job anyway. To get it he would need to do a remarkable job: giving Celtic a good, close run AND win the Cup, which was and is unlikely. He's done a good job, but he's not good enough. I'm not criticising the guy per se, it's just that he's been thrown in to do a job without any experience.

It's Martinez's Assistant, not Martinez himself, I think.

I'd be astonished.

I wonder if the offensive structure and positioning isn't there, though; and that's a reason why we take an age to do anything. (And perhaps evidence of the players being left to their own devices?) I can't count the number of times I see very few passing options on the ball for a player; it should be instinctive that the players know what they're doing. Moving it quicker would certainly help. I think you underestimate your track record when it comes to posts... Congratulations!

Allan's numbers were apparently quite good at Dundee too, although the end product wasn't there.

That's perhaps something we need -- I would still take Allan if he was let go... However, I think there are different ways to play the No.10 role; it's not necessarily a 'creative' position. I think we have a perception of the No.10 being a specific role, but it's a lot more varied than that. Windass is not, and never was, a 'creative' player; he's more a second-striker. He played really well up front in that 4-diamond-2 against Aberdeen.

I agree, I just think we're missing a step. We need a better structure to allow those strikers to make their runs; supporting runs, covering positions, better defensive structure -- not formation --, a clearer idea of what they need to do. I do feel like it's 'off-the-cuff', as if the players are left to their own devices. I hate that; everything I read about modern football has pre-conceived and -drilled player movements and pressing traps, etc.; If you watch Man City, if one player moves position, then another will move to compensate. Similarly, though, there is a mistaken belief that more strikers equals more goals. That's a complete fallacy to me.

For me, it's not really about the formation; It's a good basic structure, fitting the players, but it's how we play it. We are far too linear in our approaches -- it may as well be a 4-4-2! It's always one winger and full-back combination trying to fashion and cross or shot. This is easy to deal with most of the time. We need to get in behind; we need more dynamic play. We need triangles as opposed to simple linear overlaps from the full-back. This is the heart of Murty's deficiencies, for me. A formation switch will not change this. Leicester's game against Chelsea, although they didn't win, showed how to play a more dynamic game; it was just a basic, simple difference -- and that was with a 4-4-2! One of the CM, or one of the forwards would come wide to create little triangles with the Full-back and Winger; sometimes both. All the play was diagonal, not linear, to give Chelsea something to think about. The aim was to get in behind. It wasn't brilliantly executed, but it shows how they way a team approaches their build-up is much more important than formation in trying to create chances. Even Barca play 4-4-2 nowadays, but you'll never see them play in a linear, static fashion: one wide player comes inside to make a diamond at times with Paulinho --PAULINHO, the Tottenham DM reject! -- playing the No.10; Paulinho is the worst 'creative' No.10 you'll ever see. Anyway, my point -- perhaps poorly made -- is that the formation is not the issue, but the way we play it. Tottenham -- another, final example -- play a 4-2-3-1, but you'd never accuse them of being static, linear or struggling to break a side down.

It went out of fashion when teams with "numbers [...] clip-boards/diagrams, videos" humped them.

Very interesting question. I don't think so. Case in point, Stoke: they propelled up the leagues with a basic approach, brutal to watch but effective percentage football; but once they tried to develop further, and they made improvements all-over, but ultimately failed. I think there's a ceiling with that style of football; it only takes you so far. You'd then need a Guardiola. Leipzig are the only side to really propel up the leagues and then challenge for the title. Their style is completely unlike Clarke; its all fast transitions -- a style that already had pedigree at the top end of the table with Salzburg. (I've said before but Salzburg would be a terrific model for us.) I've waffled there...

That's very true. Taking a quick look at the games you'd expect them to 'dominate', it's either a tight game that ends in a 1-0 win or a draw, or it's a narrow victory (3-2 comes up a lot). But that's against teams that will sit-in, but will tend to have a go much more than against us or Celtic. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't get past that 'style' -- for want of a better word -- difference.

We're pretty direct as it is; get it wide a get a cross in or wangle a shot. I'm not sure lumping it in the box from even deeper gives defences in this league anything to worry about?