Robsonball

[ahead on alphabet]

36 minutes ago, Rubin said:

Once again I point to the pass completion stats(from sportinglife) , which should come as no surprise.

After a quick glance  over the whole conference league games last night.

guess who was lowest at 63% pass completion  https://www.sportinglife.com/football/live/174806/stats

A couple of teams had 66%

The overall average was around 84%

even among teams who were beaten they were sometimes in the 80's range

29% possession at home says everything you need to know about it. 

[robbojunior]

Just now, ahead on alphabet said:

29% possession at home says everything you need to know about it. 

fucking stats.  we were 2-0 up with 20 mins to go.  29% possession means absolutely fuck all in isolation

[jamiesd]

Just now, robbojunior said:

fucking stats.  we were 2-0 up with 20 mins to go.  29% possession means absolutely fuck all in isolation

Ok then, being 2-0 up with twenty to go then getting pumped means nothing in isolation either. 

[robbojunior]

14 minutes ago, jamiesd said:

Ok then, being 2-0 up with twenty to go then getting pumped means nothing in isolation either. 

Agreed.  Thank you for validating my point.

[VinegarStrokes]

I'm not suggesting Duk has been anything other than disappointing this season but he was hung out to dry last night, he's not a target man or someone who will play up front and link the play. There is just no way to argue Duk was the correct sub at 2-0 up at home. Incidentally if we had been 1 down with 25 minutes to go is there anyone that truly believes Miovski is subbed off? Not a chance. The Barron sub was even more bizarre, I thought he was the best player on the park in the second half, everything good about us came through him. Completely amateurish to make the three subs together rather than take the opportunity to break up play and deny PAOK a sniff of finding any rhythm. It genuinely felt like PAOK had run their race at that stage. Staggeringly naive by Robson, it was a proper what the fuck moment.

I thought the first half was pretty brutal albeit we restricted PAOK to only two chances of note and I said beforehand substance > style, but the lumping of the ball forward in the vague direction of Miovski was a tough watch at home in a game we needed to win. Second half we came out and had a 20 minute spell where we seemed to advance the midfield 10 yards further up the pitch and we were able to implement a far more effective press that they struggled to cope with. 

The VAR fiasco needs challenged by the club, the fact the MacKenzie incident wasn't even reviewed should result in an explanation from UEFA. Robson is going to need to pull a few big results out the bag in the next few weeks, most importantly the LCSF, or it will become a matter of when not if he gets the dunt. Hopefully there's not a similar downward spiral off the back of last night that we saw post Hun game last year but I have little confidence BR or the squad are capable of stringing a run of results together, to me that was a massive failure in mentality all round last night.

[Ke1t]

The fact Robson couldn't manage us through a 2-0 lead with less than 20 minutes to go... jesus. 

I was on the fence, but last night confirmed he's not up to this job. 

Fire the cunt aff the roof. 

[zeroisgod76]

30 minutes ago, robbojunior said:

Agreed.  Thank you for validating my point.

Failing to win 15 of the last 20 games isn't something thats in isolation though is it?

[robbojunior]

11 minutes ago, zeroisgod76 said:

Failing to win 15 of the last 20 games isn't something thats in isolation though is it?

Nope - I agree its a worry.  But you also can't just take that stat on its own and say he needs sacked.  We are 9 games into a season not 20, and there's nothing between 3rd to 11th.  We've been really inconsistent so far with a wholly changed squad and have put in some great and some shit performances against some top sides and some shit sides. 

As a lot of folk have said, we've got a hard run of games coming, so by christmas we will probably have a good idea of which way its going, but right now, even with 5 wins in 20, sacking is not even remotely justified in my opinion.

[VinegarStrokes]

6 minutes ago, robbojunior said:

Nope - I agree its a worry.  But you also can't just take that stat on its own and say he needs sacked.  We are 9 games into a season not 20, and there's nothing between 3rd to 11th.  We've been really inconsistent so far with a wholly changed squad and have put in some great and some shit performances against some top sides and some shit sides. 

As a lot of folk have said, we've got a hard run of games coming, so by christmas we will probably have a good idea of which way its going, but right now, even with 5 wins in 20, sacking is not even remotely justified in my opinion.

Out of interest what are you classing as the great performances this season?

I'd say the Huns away was a great result certainly but not necessarily a great performance particularly in the first half.

Frankfurt? Good performance and maybe unlucky not to get a point although the stats say otherwise  .

County at home? I'm not going to pick holes in a 4-0 win against anyone

[Russell]

36 minutes ago, VinegarStrokes said:

 

County at home? I'm not going to pick holes in a 4-0 win against anyone

Then you're in the wrong place! 

[Millertime]

58 minutes ago, robbojunior said:

Nope - I agree its a worry.  But you also can't just take that stat on its own and say he needs sacked.  We are 9 games into a season not 20, and there's nothing between 3rd to 11th.  We've been really inconsistent so far with a wholly changed squad and have put in some great and some shit performances against some top sides and some shit sides. 

As a lot of folk have said, we've got a hard run of games coming, so by christmas we will probably have a good idea of which way its going, but right now, even with 5 wins in 20, sacking is not even remotely justified in my opinion.

What's the relevance of the small gap in points in 3rd to 11th, with us?

It makes it all the more infuriating

Everyone has been keech

If we hadn't been keech and won the games we should have, we would be clear in 3rd

[Willo flood]

1 hour ago, robbojunior said:

there's nothing between 3rd to 11th

That’s nothing to do with good work from us though. The only reason we are 2 points behind Hearts in 4th is because they are absolutely gash and had the easiest opening run of fixtures possible.

We should be leaving teams like Hearts and Hibs in the mud this year and yet we are using being close to them as some sort of justification for how bad we’ve been.

[DD1903]

2 hours ago, robbojunior said:

fucking stats.  we were 2-0 up with 20 mins to go.  29% possession means absolutely fuck all in isolation

How’d that work out ?

[DD1903]

Form this season

D L W D D L L L L W W W D D L

 

Form since February 

L W L W W W W W W W L D L W L D L W D D L L L L W W W D D L

 

pish

[Dons79]

1 minute ago, DD1903 said:

Form this season

D L W D D L L L L W W W D D L

 

Form since February 

L W L W W W W W W W L D L W L D L W D D L L L L W W W D D L

 

pish

I,ll have a vowel please carol.

[Schapenneuker]

5 hours ago, CraigHill said:

Come on to fuck - we need to be a little more expansive against Kilmarnock than we were against PAOK.

However, herein lies another problem - we have created a squad that’s set up for holding back against teams - what happens when we are supposed to be on the front foot?

Fuck all - we run out of ideas very quickly.

Literally no width to get behind a team and put them on the back foot.

Banker 0v0.

5-4-1 is not necessarily a negative formation....especially if Polvara and Barron are playing well, and McKenzie is giving us attacking width. 

Control the midfield and the chances will come. 

The 5-3-2 that we've been playing doesn't work because we lose the midfield battle, and Duk is offering us nothing. Far better lining up with form players and a formation that they're comfortable in. 

 

[ahead on alphabet]

17 hours ago, Schapenneuker said:

5-4-1 is not necessarily a negative formation....especially if Polvara and Barron are playing well, and McKenzie is giving us attacking width. 

Control the midfield and the chances will come. 

The 5-3-2 that we've been playing doesn't work because we lose the midfield battle, and Duk is offering us nothing. Far better lining up with form players and a formation that they're comfortable in. 

 

Getting attacking players on the pitch to give us attacking width is the only answer to the width problem. Controlling the midfield is a hell of a lot easier when you have the opposition defence back covering your attacking players and the midfield have players to play off. It's so fucking frustrating seeing the midfield talent we have not able to affect a game at all. 

Drop the weak link in the 3 CBs and start playing proper football with the 4 at the back that this squad is fucking screaming out for.

[sooth_stander]

17 hours ago, Schapenneuker said:

5-4-1 is not necessarily a negative formation....especially if Polvara and Barron are playing well, and McKenzie is giving us attacking width. 

Control the midfield and the chances will come. 

The 5-3-2 that we've been playing doesn't work because we lose the midfield battle, and Duk is offering us nothing. Far better lining up with form players and a formation that they're comfortable in. 

 

Bin the back 5 nonsense then

If you go to a back 4, you can have Duk, Clarkson/McGrath/Polvara and Duncan in the 3 behind Miovski, with Barron and Shinnie holding. Simples.

And big Ruby drops out of the team.

What is does illustrate is a lack of wing options and defensive midfield options. Hopefully that gets addressed in Jan, with Or Dadia and Williams simultaneously disappearing. 
 

 

[ahead on alphabet]

12 minutes ago, sooth_stander said:

Bin the back 5 nonsense then

If you go to a back 4, you can have Duk, Clarkson/McGrath/Polvara and Duncan in the 3 behind Miovski, with Barron and Shinnie holding. Simples.

And big Ruby drops out of the team.

What is does illustrate is a lack of wing options and defensive midfield options. Hopefully that gets addressed in Jan, with Or Dadia and Williams simultaneously disappearing. 
 

 

Absolutely. It's so fucking simple that any manager with any kind of experience would walk straight in with. All the players (except Rubezic) would be on side straight away. 

[sooth_stander]

12 minutes ago, ahead on alphabet said:

Absolutely. It's so fucking simple that any manager with any kind of experience would walk straight in with. All the players (except Rubezic) would be on side straight away. 

There appears to be an acceptance almost, with the management team, that we will concede possession with a 5 at the back. And so become a counter attacking team. 

I’m not sure that the 2 things need to be mutually exclusive. You could have a back 4, control possession and still be a counter attacking team, if you so wish. Just gives you so many more options.

With Clarkson/Barron in the side, why would you NOT want to control possession?

[ahead on alphabet]

34 minutes ago, sooth_stander said:

There appears to be an acceptance almost, with the management team, that we will concede possession with a 5 at the back. And so become a counter attacking team. 

I’m not sure that the 2 things need to be mutually exclusive. You could have a back 4, control possession and still be a counter attacking team, if you so wish. Just gives you so many more options.

With Clarkson/Barron in the side, why would you NOT want to control possession?

Counter attacking team at home to St Johnstone. It's mental when you say it out loud.

[aberdeen1970]

49 minutes ago, sooth_stander said:

There appears to be an acceptance almost, with the management team, that we will concede possession with a 5 at the back. And so become a counter attacking team. 

I’m not sure that the 2 things need to be mutually exclusive. You could have a back 4, control possession and still be a counter attacking team, if you so wish. Just gives you so many more options.

With Clarkson/Barron in the side, why would you NOT want to control possession?

We were mainly a counter attacking team under McInnes in the first half of his time here up until 2017. 

That was in a 4231 formation for 95% of the time.  I think we'd be better in that formation as when we do break we’ll be able to play between the lines instead of missing out the midfield. Also it means the likes of Barron are more likely to be playing the passes forward rather than one of the centre backs so you'd expect a better quality of pass overall. 

Plus when the front 4 press there's not going to be as big a gap between them and the 2 midfielders as there is now. 

And you've got a better chance of controlling the game in that shape imo which is what we all want. 

Got to be worth a try surely. 

[thurso]

1 hour ago, aberdeen1970 said:

We were mainly a counter attacking team under McInnes in the first half of his time here up until 2017. 

That was in a 4231 formation for 95% of the time.  I think we'd be better in that formation as when we do break we’ll be able to play between the lines instead of missing out the midfield. Also it means the likes of Barron are more likely to be playing the passes forward rather than one of the centre backs so you'd expect a better quality of pass overall. 

Plus when the front 4 press there's not going to be as big a gap between them and the 2 midfielders as there is now. 

And you've got a better chance of controlling the game in that shape imo which is what we all want. 

Got to be worth a try surely. 

It’s not the formation that’s the problem 4231 or 352 it doesn’t make much difference 

[VinegarStrokes]

2 minutes ago, thurso said:

It’s not the formation that’s the problem 4231 or 352 it doesn’t make much difference 

Sorry but in what world does a completely different formation not make much difference to the way a team plays? I'm genuinely baffled by that statement 

[thurso]

16 minutes ago, VinegarStrokes said:

Sorry but in what world does a completely different formation not make much difference to the way a team plays? I'm genuinely baffled by that statement 

It’s tactics that make a difference not formations. At the end of the day it’s 11 v 11. 
With the players we have 3 at the back isn’t a bad formation. 

[G man]

25 minutes ago, thurso said:

It’s tactics that make a difference not formations. At the end of the day it’s 11 v 11. 
With the players we have 3 at the back isn’t a bad formation. 

I suspect the formation has been decided and players brought in to fit that formation of play. Whether people like it or not l do not think the formation will change. Just as 13 new players need to settle in to their new club they also need to develop within the formation that the club had chosen to play.

[VinegarStrokes]

29 minutes ago, thurso said:

It’s tactics that make a difference not formations. At the end of the day it’s 11 v 11. 
With the players we have 3 at the back isn’t a bad formation. 

I disagree, if you're adopting a different formation then that by definition is adopting a different tactic. I don't believe for a second you think that professional football is just as simple as saying its 11 v 11 though.

By the way I'm not disputing 3 at the back is a particularly good or bad formation with the players available to us but to say that adopting a completely new formation makes no difference is clearly bonkers

[ahead on alphabet]

1 hour ago, thurso said:

It’s not the formation that’s the problem 4231 or 352 it doesn’t make much difference 

This is hilarious. You are another on the piss take.

[WesthillWanderersFC]

36 minutes ago, thurso said:

It’s tactics that make a difference not formations. At the end of the day it’s 11 v 11. 
With the players we have 3 at the back isn’t a bad formation. 

Definitely the new Tinyweelad 

[VinegarStrokes]

18 minutes ago, G man said:

I suspect the formation has been decided and players brought in to fit that formation of play. Whether people like it or not l do not think the formation will change. Just as 13 new players need to settle in to their new club they also need to develop within the formation that the club had chosen to play.

Surely if you're buying in players to fit a pre-determined formation you buy players with experience of playing in those positions? You don't buy players that have no experience in playing those positions then expect them to adapt unless you're incompetent or taking the piss.

You don't buy two specialist right backs and convert one to RWB then freeze out the other one completely as he's a dedicated RB and nothing more?

Or on the other side of the pitch where we have limited options in the LWB position we decide to sign a left back with no history of playing LWB and very little first team experience at all? 

Or sign two strikers for the guts of half a million quid and don't give them any minutes?