Walter, what's up ? Tell Gordy and the boys.

[biggordy 0]

Is it altzeimers, parkinsons, memory loss or are you a double agent ?

Can anyone else suggest what ails Uncle Walter and why he ignores all advice ?

[Frankie 8,184]

It's an interesting point actually...

 

Sometimes stubbornness and single-mindedness can be admired. Someone like Sir Alex Ferguson has made a legendary career out of it. However, care must be taken and occasionally mistakes must be admitted to and actioned over personal pride.

 

The first real signs of these initial traits were with the Kenny Miller transfer. An average player at an expensive price who the fans couldn't get behind due to his previous Celtic affiliations. Many fans made their opinion known at several games last season. We didn't want him.

 

However, we were told to like it or lump it. Fair enough - the manager decides his team and is entitled to live or die with such decisions.

 

Well, the signing of Miller (who has been predictably average over the piece) and the continual over-use of a negative 4-5-1 outlook has put Smith into cardiac arrest. For now, he's on a MIH Life Support Machine.

 

One more bad result and it could see some fans pulling the plug for them. As such, Smith must admit his mistakes and put his pride to one side. If he can demand that of certain players, then he should be doing the same.

 

No more negativity.

[calscot 0]

You have to ask the question, "What is negativity?" Even football positions are named after the old accepted 2-3-5 formation. Should we play that again or is it considered naive? As far as I know, England were the first to adopt a 4-4-2 formation while everyone was mostly playing a 4-3-3, and they won the world cup. Should they have been less negative? Italian football dominated Europe for a while with catenaccio and was considered the best league in the world, and their national team went on to win the World Cup with what could be considered very negative tactics.

 

So it seems that as the world of football revolves around the sun, it learns a bit more about tactics, strategies and what works. Coaches learn how to get results, not how to be positive and entertaining, negativity is a sophistication that would make some of the best "positive" teams of past look like naive schoolboys.

 

Hamilton were even criticised for being too positive against Rangers in the Scottish cup recently.

 

Is so called negativity just an evolution in the game of survival of the fittest?

 

It's got to be said it works for lesser skilled teams over greater skill, which was proven for Scotland recently and for Rangers run to the UEFA cup final. It's also useful to roll over lesser teams as well which resulted in us dominating the league and cups until the fixture list took all our energy away.

 

And that's possibly part of the problem at the end of last season and a bit of this season. It takes a hell of a lot of energy which at times our team don't seem to possess.

 

Ironically, our manager has listened to the fans this season, and mostly switched to a 4-4-2 formation and has also introduced exciting prospects into the team. In fact despite much derision of Smith's use of young players, we've been playing plenty of young players.

 

However, this increased positivity has us in a lesser position from last seasons more negative formation and we do not have the air of invincibility that we had until the last stage of last season.

 

So just exactly where is positivity taking us and is it a backwards step? Is that why we haven't moved forward?

 

I would honestly have preferred that we developed what looked like a successful formation into one that allowed a fast switch from 4-1-4-1 to 4-3-3 in attack which worked so well in some of our best games last season. That would have been moving forward somewhere instead of starting again with a different strategy that obviously needs a lot more developing.

[Gazza_8 233]

On the otherhand Calscot you've got teams like Man Ure and Barca who are coasting along in their leagues.

 

Playing negative football is all good and well if you have the correct players and correct manager to go along with it. We don't!

[Frankie 8,184]

The problem is that because our manager insists on player players out of position and has minimal balance in the team in other areas, any formation employed is going to be a hit and a miss.

 

For me the biggest problem this season has been the loss of Kevin Thomson who provided industry, aggression and balance in midfield. This allowed the Mendes' and the Davis' of the world to get forward and dictate play in dangerous areas.

 

Once we lost him, we gamble in many games with Mendes and Ferguson in midfield. Both are too similar - powderpuff, lack pace and don't get forward or track runners defensively. That means Davis almost always sits too deep as well. Usually we have enough quality to get through though but struggle in more difficult matches.

 

Smith knows this. That's why against any reasonable opposition he plays another holding player - be it McCulloch or even Dailly FFS. All because he obviously doesn't trust Edu.

 

Fair enough you might say. The lad is young, inexperienced and still adapting to our game. Well, as has been seen again this season, we can ill-afford the luxury of bedding in new recruits. And not at �£2.7million.

 

The Thomson injury was a cruel blow which the manager cannot be blamed for. However, the lack of a suitable plan B is one he can be questioned over. We're similarly weak at the back and also lack strength up front.

 

That's why we don't even play the likes of Naismith, Velicka, Edu, Beasley and McCulloch in their proper roles as it doesn't help our main problem of being a team devoid of confidence, morale, motivation, mobility and physical strength/fitness.

 

Millions of pounds wasted with little chance of recouping the loss and even less chance of money being available to fix the team's problems.

 

I've no idea how we fix it. Unfortunately, neither does Smith is seems.

[calscot 0]

On the otherhand Calscot you've got teams like Man Ure and Barca who are coasting along in their leagues.

 

Playing negative football is all good and well if you have the correct players and correct manager to go along with it. We don't!

 

Barca play some of the most negative football I've ever seen and really couldn't understand their complaints about our style when they were far more negative a lot of the time than us. Barca basically stopped us playing football, they closed us down every time we had the ball and gave us no space whatsoever to play.

 

They basically played extreme spoiling tactics. We on the other hand, gave them space to play and pass the ball - how is that negative?

 

The difference for Barca is that they had the skill in possession to do something with the ball AFTER they used extreme negative tactics to win the ball.

 

We basically weren't good enough to play as negative as them when defending or play as positive as them in attack. However, in both games, Barca had few decent chances and spent a lot of the time passing it around the halfway line.

 

We just don't have the players to play Barca's or Man U's style of play - and neither did they until the financial balance shifted strongly in their favour.

[calscot 0]

The problem is that because our manager insists on player players out of position and has minimal balance in the team in other areas, any formation employed is going to be a hit and a miss.

 

For me the biggest problem this season has been the loss of Kevin Thomson who provided industry, aggression and balance in midfield. This allowed the Mendes' and the Davis' of the world to get forward and dictate play in dangerous areas.

 

Once we lost him, we gamble in many games with Mendes and Ferguson in midfield. Both are too similar - powderpuff, lack pace and don't get forward or track runners defensively. That means Davis almost always sits too deep as well. Usually we have enough quality to get through though but struggle in more difficult matches.

 

Smith knows this. That's why against any reasonable opposition he plays another holding player - be it McCulloch or even Dailly FFS. All because he obviously doesn't trust Edu.

 

Fair enough you might say. The lad is young, inexperienced and still adapting to our game. Well, as has been seen again this season, we can ill-afford the luxury of bedding in new recruits. And not at �£2.7million.

 

The Thomson injury was a cruel blow which the manager cannot be blamed for. However, the lack of a suitable plan B is one he can be questioned over. We're similarly weak at the back and also lack strength up front.

 

That's why we don't even play the likes of Naismith, Velicka, Edu, Beasley and McCulloch in their proper roles as it doesn't help our main problem of being a team devoid of confidence, morale, motivation, mobility and physical strength/fitness.

 

Millions of pounds wasted with little chance of recouping the loss and even less chance of money being available to fix the team's problems.

 

I've no idea how we fix it. Unfortunately, neither does Smith is seems.

 

There is little there I disagree with, and for me it's properly getting to the crux of the problem and Walter's REAL failures. That's the kind of stuff I want to talk about...

 

The one thing that I think is also unlucky for Walter is that he probably thought he DID have a replacement for Thomson in Ferguson who played that role with effect at Blackburn and at times for us. However, who would have guessed our captain is past it so young? Usually player of his ilk are peaking at 30 due to their vast experience.

 

I think it shows that in both cases of manager and player, you should never go back. You will never live up to expectations.

[Gazza_8 233]

Barca play some of the most negative football I've ever seen and really couldn't understand their complaints about our style when they were far more negative a lot of the time than us. Barca basically stopped us playing football, they closed us down every time we had the ball and gave us no space whatsoever to play.

 

They basically played extreme spoiling tactics. We on the other hand, gave them space to play and pass the ball - how is that negative?

 

The difference for Barca is that they had the skill in possession to do something with the ball AFTER they used extreme negative tactics to win the ball.

 

We basically weren't good enough to play as negative as them when defending or play as positive as them in attack. However, in both games, Barca had few decent chances and spent a lot of the time passing it around the halfway line.

 

We just don't have the players to play Barca's or Man U's style of play - and neither did they until the financial balance shifted strongly in their favour.

 

Barca play a negative style of football? Hmmmm. Heard it all now!

 

When defending, what teams don't put 9 or 10 players behind the ball to either shut up shop or to gain possession back? When they're on the attack, their players flood forward to support the player with the ball. We're lucky, when attacking if there's 2 people in the box to pass to. We're lucky if 4 players cross the halfway line to support the forwards.

 

If Barca play negative football we must play the most defensive and negative style ever.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Gazza_8

[Frankie 8,184]

Yep, Ferguson's lack of mobility and Smith's lack of trust in Edu means we have a malfunctioning midfield.

 

That causes problems defensively and offensively.

 

Smith must change that if we're to challenge for the title.

[calscot 0]

Barca play a negative style of football? Hmmmm. Heard it all now!

 

I think I've made a decent case, did you actually read and understand it? Care to give a well reasoned rebuttal?

 

Tell me what is positive about denying a team the space to play and closing them down at every opportunity?