Partick Thistle 🔴 🟡 Vs Raith Rovers 🔵⚪️

[BowenBoys]

8 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

If you want to be “ entertained” go to the Movies

...

Wow. What a joyless soul you are.

NB: Selective quoting in deference to anyone utilising the forum's ignore function

[Lenziejag]

11 hours ago, Ancipital said:

I think we had 3 games in hand and at no stage were we ever needing other results to go for us. As it is, we've only got Falkirk to play twice and they're 12 ahead of us.

They've also already had a good few injuries, MacIver as average (at best) as he was for us is excellent for them and has missed quite a few games plus the winger Morrison has missed most of the season.

I don't think they'll keep going at their current pace , if they do, no-one is catching them, but we need to be aiming for mid-70s in terms of points in case they do drop off.

Maciver had scored one goal in the league before getting injured.

[Jordanhill Jag]

46 minutes ago, BowenBoys said:

Wow. What a joyless soul you are.

NB: Selective quoting in deference to anyone utilising the forum's ignore function

There is zero point playing “ entertaining football” if it doesn't win you games -we are not the Harlem Globetrotters 

 

Edited November 11 by Jordanhill Jag

[BowenBoys]

Neither the post you quoted nor I suggested we were playing entertaining football.

It is possible to be entertained by a sporting contest if you don't win. 

We are not winning games week in, week out yet people still turn up to watch because it entertains them.

[laukat]

10 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

If you want to be “ entertained” go to the Movies - the objective of a Football Club is to win games 

we had an additional £300K spent on the squad this year compared to the previous 2 Seasons - at best we will make the Playoffs 

No better than the last Three Seasons - so changing manager - increasing budgets are not cutting it 

Maybe its a mindset thing - where mediocrity is applauded  

We were creating chances - not scoring - at HT you change shape put on another forwards - what did we do - nothing 

RR then change shape - they negate our play - and even when we do put on a Sub its a straight swap

 

This I think was the issue on Saturday and partially caused by recent successes. We have grown so confident in our defensive record that once we score we largely sit back and soak things up.

In general Doolan's subs are too late and don't really alter the game in our favour. I have a running joke with my boy as to when Doolan will make his first sub and the answer is nearly always when we lose a goal. Subs should be there to stop a goal being conceded or change the pattern of the game. I struggle to think of too many times Doolan has managed that.

It was fairly obvious to all watching that Raith had changed formation and personnel at halftime and figured out our plan A. Raith realised by going 4-2-3-1 and giving our fullbacks some defending to do that we had limited width or outball. However our subs made us weaker.

Fitzpatrick was back to his infuriating worse by shying away from physical challenges and hoping the ball will drop at his feet. He also left Milne to do all the defensive work and by that time he was having a hard time against Raith's halftime sub  Ablade got thrown on in a desperate attempt to try something different but with actually little clear idea of how best to use him.

We have umpteen options of the bench so plenty of scope to change personnel and formation. When Raith went 4-2-3-1 we should have changed formation and given Raith something different to come to terms with knowing that they had 1 less sub to counter with as they had to change first. Instead we just waited assuming our defence we get us by and ultimately we can consider ourselves fortunate not to have thrown away 3 points.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

44 minutes ago, laukat said:

This I think was the issue on Saturday and partially caused by recent successes. We have grown so confident in our defensive record that once we score we largely sit back and soak things up.

Sorry for the selective quote but I'm just making a point regarding above. Previously when we leaked goals we had that same tendency holding onto a goal lead, sitting back and defending too deep. So I'd suggest that any evidence of that of late is a legacy of a deep rooted fault.

Altho' the manager is in some way to blame, as in most cases of sitting back/deep defending it's the players that are at fault. That's either thru complacency or more often it's a simple attitude thing. If Doolan wanted  simply to protect that 1-0 lead he'd have brought on McBeth in midfield, or Muirhead in defence and gone three at the back.

Personally on Saturday I don't believe we were nearly as protective of a goal lead as in the recent past. More our midfield can be too easily brushed aside. They were good individually on the ball, especially Bannigan, but aren't best equipped to break up play. Same difference then as sitting back but perhaps more thru necessity than design?

Edited November 11 by lady-isobel-barnett

[laukat]

18 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Sorry for the selective quote but I'm just making a point regarding above. Previously when we leaked goals we had that same tendency holding onto a goal lead, sitting back and defending too deep. So I'd suggest that any evidence of that of late is a legacy of a deep rooted fault.

Altho' the manager is in some way to blame, as in most cases of sitting back/deep defending it's the players that are at fault. That's either thru complacency or more often it's a simple attitude thing. If Doolan wanted  simply to protect that 1-0 lead he'd have brought on McBeth in midfield, or Muirhead in defence and gone three at the back.

Personally on Saturday I don't believe we were nearly as protective of a goal lead as in the recent past. More our midfield can be too easily brushed aside. They were good individually on the ball, especially Bannigan, but aren't best equipped to break up play. Same difference then as sitting back but perhaps more thru necessity than design?

I think we are probably in the same head space.

We're I see a slight distinction was that on Saturday was the attitude of complacency was from the management team. I think they looked at the game second half and thought 'we've seen this before at Dunfermline, Queens so our defence will be fine just keep going'

There were warning signs well before Raith scored that we had lost our grip on the game and unlike Dunfermline and Queens, Raith do have a bit more ability to take advantage.

As you rightly say the manager could have put on McBeth/Muirhead and shut up shop or he could have put on fresh legs if he thought the system was ok and the loss of control was because Raith had fresh legs or he could have made other changes if he thought pushing Raith back would have altered the pattern of play however he didn't make any changes until after they equalised. 

On face value we lost 2 points to a well taken freekick. However that was the second opportunity we had given Easton from about the same position and freekick specialists such as him don't tend to miss twice. Also what more worried me was after their goal our defence was scrambling to keep it 1-1 and the Raith right winger (Pollock?) was running rings round Milne with Fitzpatrick offering no help what so ever. That suggested that subbing on Fitzpatrick was the wrong sub even when they got round to making a sub.

[Jaggernaut]

56 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

 

Personally on Saturday I don't believe we were nearly as protective of a goal lead as in the recent past. More our midfield can be too easily brushed aside. They were good individually on the ball, especially Bannigan, but aren't best equipped to break up play. Same difference then as sitting back but perhaps more thru necessity than design?

I agree with the above, but also with Laukat's general point(s) about when Doolan brings on subs and what (if any) difference they make. As for breaking up play, I actually think that the player in the squad does that best is Stanway.

We weren't at all dreadful on Saturday but frustrating, with the continued meagre scoring rate, and the slowness and too-often pointlessness of our passing.

[Lenziejag]

1 hour ago, laukat said:

This I think was the issue on Saturday and partially caused by recent successes. We have grown so confident in our defensive record that once we score we largely sit back and soak things up.

In general Doolan's subs are too late and don't really alter the game in our favour. I have a running joke with my boy as to when Doolan will make his first sub and the answer is nearly always when we lose a goal. Subs should be there to stop a goal being conceded or change the pattern of the game. I struggle to think of too many times Doolan has managed that.

It was fairly obvious to all watching that Raith had changed formation and personnel at halftime and figured out our plan A. Raith realised by going 4-2-3-1 and giving our fullbacks some defending to do that we had limited width or outball. However our subs made us weaker.

Fitzpatrick was back to his infuriating worse by shying away from physical challenges and hoping the ball will drop at his feet. He also left Milne to do all the defensive work and by that time he was having a hard time against Raith's halftime sub  Ablade got thrown on in a desperate attempt to try something different but with actually little clear idea of how best to use him.

We have umpteen options of the bench so plenty of scope to change personnel and formation. When Raith went 4-2-3-1 we should have changed formation and given Raith something different to come to terms with knowing that they had 1 less sub to counter with as they had to change first. Instead we just waited assuming our defence we get us by and ultimately we can consider ourselves fortunate not to have thrown away 3 points.

Irrespective of whether Raith changed their system and whether the subs made a difference or not, the only way Raith scored was from a wonder free kick that wasn’t exactly a clear cut free kick.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

Just now, Jaggernaut said:

I agree with the above, but also with Laukat's general point(s) about when Doolan brings on subs and what (if any) difference they make. As for breaking up play, I actually think that the player in the squad does that best is Stanway.

We weren't at all dreadful on Saturday but frustrating, with the continued meagre scoring rate, and the slowness and too-often pointlessness of our passing.

Criticism of Doolan's substitutions either in timing or personnel involved is valid. But with Stanway, and to a lesser extent MacKenzie, unavailable it meant Bannigan would likely play the full 90 mins. I reckon Ben would've replaced Banzo for around the last ten minutes. 

Re substitutions I felt Ablade should've come on much earlier. And unless there was a fitness issue it may have been the better option to have Crawford subbed ahead of Turner.

[Dick Dastardly]

2 hours ago, laukat said:

freekick specialists such as him don't tend to miss twice. 

Sorry to be selective, but Turner’s free kicks have been bloody awful this season 

[laukat]

11 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Sorry to be selective, but Turner’s free kicks have been bloody awful this season 

We've not had many that are in shooting range. His delivery against Dunfermline was pretty much an assist. However in general you are correct, nowhere near what we know he can do

[laukat]

2 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Criticism of Doolan's substitutions either in timing or personnel involved is valid. But with Stanway, and to a lesser extent MacKenzie, unavailable it meant Bannigan would likely play the full 90 mins. I reckon Ben would've replaced Banzo for around the last ten minutes. 

Re substitutions I felt Ablade should've come on much earlier. And unless there was a fitness issue it may have been the better option to have Crawford subbed ahead of Turner.

I thought the obvious sub was Fitzpatrick for Crawford if we wanted to go to a 4-2-3-1. Crawford provide aggression and energy but Turner is better at dictating play. Bannigan and Crawford have similar strengths so to my mind it was one of them that should have been subbed.

Also though the more natural sub for Ablade was either Graham if we stayed 4-2-3-1 or Robinson if we were more looking to go 4-4-2. To my mind Doolan had decided to get Ablade on without really figuring out where to play him.

[jagfox]

1 hour ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Sorry to be selective, but Turner’s free kicks have been bloody awful this season 

He scored a belter vs Edinburgh City.

[Jag]

17 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

If you want to be “ entertained” go to the Movies - the objective of a Football Club is to win games 

we had an additional £300K spent on the squad this year compared to the previous 2 Seasons - at best we will make the Playoffs 

No better than the last Three Seasons - so changing manager - increasing budgets are not cutting it 

Maybe its a mindset thing - where mediocrity is applauded  

We were creating chances - not scoring - at HT you change shape put on another forwards - what did we do - nothing 

RR then change shape - they negate our play - and even when we do put on a Sub its a straight swap

 

Sorry, I've got to disagree with the first part of this. Sport is for entertainment. Part of the reason I go to the football to be entertained. 

I've not enjoyed this season at all. Most games have been pretty boring and, when we have managed to win, it's usually been unconvincing. However, in the first half on Saturday there was a glimmer of hope. A bit of excitement. Playing pretty well. Should have scored a few more - and would have on another day.

I do agree that we should be doing better than we are at present, especially given the amount we have spent. I enjoyed Saturday's game a lot more than I have done recently though, and was slightly more upbeat afterwards, despite only getting a draw.

 

 

[Albert's Ghost]

4 minutes ago, Jag said:

I enjoyed Saturday's game a lot more than I have done recently though, and was slightly more upbeat afterwards, despite only getting a draw.

 

 

Me too.