match thread (image) [FT] Celtic 5 - 0 Rangers

[Darthter 542]

1 hour ago, craig said:

The difference is that Celtic don't HAVE to make any changes.  If we play the same formation and personnel against them in a 4-0 drubbing.... why would they make any changes in the next game a couple of weeks later ??

 

When your players have been pumped 4-0 using a 4-2-3-1 the last thing you do when playing them two weeks later is..... play a 4-2-3-1 with almost the same personnel.  If you don't learn from your mistakes and all that....

playing us or not...Ceptic don't tend to change their line up much - even in Europe, he still stuck with his preferred method of play.

I'm pretty sure you'll find that most top team don't tend to utilise wholesale formation changes from one week to the next.

[Rousseau 9,478]

No, just little tactical tweaks -- like launching a long ball into our left half-space/channel, as John and whoever is next to him seem to sh*te themselves at seeing it...  

 

[craig 5,199]

7 minutes ago, Darthter said:

playing us or not...Ceptic don't tend to change their line up much - even in Europe, he still stuck with his preferred method of play.

I'm pretty sure you'll find that most top team don't tend to utilise wholesale formation changes from one week to the next.

And his stubbornness is why, under Rodgers, they will always fail in Europe.  They have been pumped on numerous occasion in Europe by trying to "beat them at their own game".  It is absolute folly to have inferior players and play the same system as superior players.  It is naivety, and stubbornness, in the extreme.

 

He can afford to play the same preferred style of play in Scotland because his resources, and lack of competition, allow him to do so. 

 

Taking your European circumstance as an example - Celtic would, effectively, be PSG compared to us being, well, Celtic.  They got pumped from PSG in the first game, played the same way and got pumped again.  Many of their fans weren't impressed at playing the same way having been pumped a few weeks prior from the same team.  Rightly so IMO.  You don't take a drubbing and then expect to do the same thing and get different results.

 

I think you will find that most top teams, if not successful, WILL make those wholesale changes.  Arsenal went from 4-2-3-1 to 3-5-2 last January in an attempt to halt their slide.  Likewise, Conte started at Chelsea with a back 4 and went on his title winning run with a back 3.  There are only a couple of ways to halt slides, the predominant ones being change of personnel (playing and/or management) and the other being change of formation.  The former either needs strength in depth of squad (outside of January window you have to just go with what you have) or a change in manager.  We weren't changing the manager and we were outside the window.  Which leaves the latter.

 

It isn't a case of making wholesale formation changes from one week to the next - you can keep the 4-2-3-1 if it is successful against all the rest.  But if it has been used and proven to fail, more than once and convincingly, against the team above you then you don't keep pushing down the same path.  It is illogical.  It is basically saying "well, we know this fails against them so lets try it again because it is the only formation we know".  That would be bad management and bad coaching, to do the same thing again knowing there is a better than average chance you will take a doing, AGAIN, using the same formation.

[Darthter 542]

Just now, craig said:

It isn't a case of making wholesale formation changes from one week to the next - you can keep the 4-2-3-1 if it is successful against all the rest.  But if it has been used and proven to fail, more than once and convincingly, against the team above you then you don't keep pushing down the same path.  It is illogical.  It is basically saying "well, we know this fails against them so lets try it again because it is the only formation we know".  That would be bad management and bad coaching, to do the same thing again knowing there is a better than average chance you will take a doing, AGAIN, using the same formation.

maybe that's part of the problem???

[boabie 230]

Formation and tactics mean nothing if our own players are incapable of completing a pass or decide to go for a wander instead of shooting.

Same as the last match - we beat ourselves.

[craig 5,199]

2 minutes ago, Darthter said:

maybe that's part of the problem???

I don't think there is much doubt it is.  Which means Murty isn't the man for the job, obviously.  There needs to be a pragmatism when your biggest rivals can outspend you and also have better players.  When something doesn't work, try something different, not the same

[craig 5,199]

Just now, boabie said:

Formation and tactics mean nothing if our own players are incapable of completing a pass or decide to go for a wander instead of shooting.

Same as the last match - we beat ourselves.

When a 5-0 doing could have been 10 you didn't just beat yourselves. You have to accept that the opponents beat you too.

[buster. 4,808]

6 minutes ago, craig said:

I don't think there is much doubt it is.  Which means Murty isn't the man for the job, obviously.  There needs to be a pragmatism when your biggest rivals can outspend you and also have better players.  When something doesn't work, try something different, not the same

Perseverence (or jumping off a cliff) seems to be quite common amongst some that try and convey 'modern approaches', eg. Warburton and Rodgers (in Europe).

 

I think there is a point when players must shrug their shoulders, wonder wthef and go out onto the park with a sense of inevitability.

 

-----------------------

 

ps. even 'modern day messageboarders' seem to keep repeatiing themselves and don't seem to ever get the point 

Edited April 30, 2018 by buster.

[boabie 230]

1 minute ago, craig said:

When a 5-0 doing could have been 10 you didn't just beat yourselves. You have to accept that the opponents beat you too.

Keeping the game at 0-0 for an amount of time while doing the basics of football = passing, beating a man, tackling, Christ, even throwing a ball to one of your team mates all goes towards giving you a chance.

Once you lose that goal you are always chasing the game.

Given our lots habit of hurtling forward it is only natural that our keeper is left exposed.

Lose another goal, even if you are playing well puts you in trouble.

Had our guys done what they are paid handsomely to do we would not have lost 5 goals.

[craig 5,199]

23 minutes ago, buster. said:

Perseverence (or jumping off a cliff) seems to be quite common amongst some that try and convey 'modern approaches', eg. Warburton and Rodgers (in Europe).

 

I think there is a point when players must shrug their shoulders, wonder wthef and go out onto the park with a sense of inevitability.

 

-----------------------

 

ps. even 'modern day messageboarders' seem to keep repeatiing themselves and don't seem to ever get the point 

I am absolutely certain that our last two games against them has seen a "oh well, same thing that failed last time, lets just try to keep it respectable" - and even that failed.