sabbath Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Thought we were playing with 10 men! Elliot is a man ******* short. Want an attack to breakdown, then gie it to Elliot. His touch is fecking terrible and canny pass water!! 9 men. remember Craigen came on with eight minutes left Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink panther Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Elliot, to paraphrase Gerry Collins "put in a shift today." I agree his first touch could be better but his role today was to nullify Robertson. OK, did not manage it for their goal but throughout the match he did his job.Would rather have Christie than guys like Forbes who may have more talent they lack the effort and commitment 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metz Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 9 men. remember Craigen came on with eight minutes left No doubt you were front and centre of the support making up for the weak among us that aren't good enough to be there in the stands supporting the team. Must be great being a colleague of yours although I probably wouldn't want to be a part of the team you think isn't good enough. Thank god the Jags are so good we can take on the opposition with only 9 men and still get a result. Shouldn't really worry I should just feel sorry for you and the rest of the soulless ar****les that seem to take no joy from a team that puts in a power of effort even although it isn't quite working at times. Great to be you that everything you do works out perfectly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metz Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 He is an on championship player nothing more and when Welsh is fit will struggle to get on the bench If we stay up he probably won't be here next season Oh and you can't play good pass and move football with players with no technique He was a championship player we won that division so he deserved his chance to make the step up. If I recall we played plenty of pass and move football last season and the early part of this season, then the results weren't good enough and wuck fits like you started calling for something different in order to win and as a result we have moved towards percentage football which isn't as pleasing on the eye and oh by the way not neting any more points either. Thanks for that, great call. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Col Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Elliott definitely the new scapegoat for some folk and unfair harsh criticism of him today. Yeah, his touch isn't great, but he always gives a good effort and chased balls today that Forbes or Baird (or Kerr) would not have chased after. Won some good balls in the air but not his fault that no-one was there to pick them up. Some people on this need to have a long look at themselves before criticising honest players who put in a shift. If it wasn't DUFC we were playing today, I fully expect that Erskine would have started and not Elliott, but let's be honest - the lad put in a good shift and didn't let us down. P.S. - forgot that Craigen is another scapegoat for some. Yeah - his 9 minutes were honking - he didn't score or anything- useless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Thought we were playing with 10 men! Elliot is a man ******* short. Want an attack to breakdown, then gie it to Elliot. His touch is fecking terrible and canny pass water!! i was going to ask if you were at the game and then looked at the name. no shock talking rubbish as normal.. nuf said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaggyMad Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 i was going to ask if you were at the game and then looked at the name. no shock talking rubbish as normal.. nuf said Yes I was , so what's your point caller? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerjag Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Elliott definitely the new scapegoat for some folk and unfair harsh criticism of him today. Yeah, his touch isn't great, but he always gives a good effort and chased balls today that Forbes or Baird (or Kerr) would not have chased after. Won some good balls in the air but not his fault that no-one was there to pick them up. Some people on this need to have a long look at themselves before criticising honest players who put in a shift. If it wasn't DUFC we were playing today, I fully expect that Erskine would have started and not Elliott, but let's be honest - the lad put in a good shift and didn't let us down. P.S. - forgot that Craigen is another scapegoat for some. Yeah - his 9 minutes were honking - he didn't score or anything- useless. Couldnt agree more Elliot put in a right good shift for us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Yes I was , so what's your point caller? my point is that Elliot was pretty good yesterday and was one of the better players, unlike some he always tries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Likewise... Taylor - Doolan Erskine Bannigan - Buaben - Fraser Would love to see that at Fir Park. I like that. I think a switch to 4-3-1-2 could work quite well. Saying that, I thought it whilst reading Robbie Savage writing about Man Utd. I can't stand him and usually never agree with him, and on top of that I don't think I can compare us to Man Utd. This midfield four will, in my opinion, help push things through the centre whilst the three more defensive midfielders will support our attacking full backs more by providing more cover. Other teams have been allowing us to dominate the wings and just made sure they can control the centre, we need to find a way of getting the ball through the middle IMO as our crossing is generally pish. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fearchar Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Perhaps it's not entirely realistic to believe that we should be putting out a team entirely made up of classy footballers. There's a niggling thought at the back of my mind that if we did in this league, then they would be steamrollered every week by tough athletes more used to playing in the kind of conditions that the city end of the pitch showed towards the end. Sometimes muscular triers like Elliott are needed, especially in Scottish winter weather conditions. As it is, we have the occasional unexpected gem, such as Conrad prancing through the DU team to create an opportunity (where did that come from?) and the odd let-down, such as Taylor not scoring from a clear opportunity. Getting a point against DU isn't a bad result, although their goalmouth threat seems to have withered. It would help our style of play if Gallacher could be persuaded to throw out the ball more often, and to aim his punts upfield at the team he's playing for, instead of trying energetically for distance. He's a good shot-stopper, but those, and his seeming inability to catch the ball cleanly in the box, are weaknesses. At times it seemed that the whole team had to get into the box to block shots- leaving Taylor isolated again. If, for whatever reason, we're not going to play Doolan and Taylor together, would it not make sense to give them starts alternately? Taylor seemed tired before the end of the first half; if Doolan had started energetically, bringing Taylor on later would have made more sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kenny Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Doolan deserves a start, he was excellent when he came on yesterday. His first touch is tremendous and his little waltz round Paton near the end was brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I think by releasing Baird, Archie has made it pretty clear that he has no intention of switching to playing two strikers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I think by releasing Baird, Archie has made it pretty clear that he has no intention of switching to playing two strikers. I think that's right but too often yesterday Taylor was very isolated and the gap between him and the midfield was too great , not helped in the first half with too many high balls lumped up the park. We need at least to find someone to play just behind Taylor who can also help in midfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andynptfc Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I think that's right but too often yesterday Taylor was very isolated and the gap between him and the midfield was too great , not helped in the first half with too many high balls lumped up the park. We need at least to find someone to play just behind Taylor who can also help in midfield Chris Erskine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillresigned Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 To me it's a complete no brainier, the difference when Dools joined Taylor made a palpable difference. I have been advocating this move since Taylor arrived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I just love the way a thread about playing Doolan and Taylor together can be hijacked into a go at your favourite scapegoat. Those who are constantly on a downer re Archie, Elliott, Craigen or whoever should realise that just recycling the same spiel in thread after thread doesn't make whatever you're trying to get across any more valid. In fact I find these posts from those who struggle to post anything positive without a dig into their default agenda just a tiresome diversion. As to Doolan and Taylor playing together I feel this will happen increasingly. Doolan is too good a player to leave on the bench for any length of time. I don't believe you should call this playing a 4-4-2 simply as Doolan will always get pulled sideways and into midfield. You'd have to fine the lad or threaten him with violence for dropping off otherwise he's always going to chase balls other strikers would leave. That's just Doolan's style and something we should utilise rather than drum out of him. I sense it's going to be difficult to get Erskine, Higgy, Taylor and Doolan all on the field at the same time but that shouldn't necessarily preclude Taylor & Doolan playing together for a good chunk of a game at least. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) I just love the way a thread about playing Doolan and Taylor together can be hijacked into a go at your favourite scapegoat. Those who are constantly on a downer re Archie, Elliott, Craigen or whoever should realise that just recycling the same spiel in thread after thread doesn't make whatever you're trying to get across any more valid. In fact I find these posts from those who struggle to post anything positive without a dig into their default agenda just a tiresome diversion. As to Doolan and Taylor playing together I feel this will happen increasingly. Doolan is too good a player to leave on the bench for any length of time. I don't believe you should call this playing a 4-4-2 simply as Doolan will always get pulled sideways and into midfield. You'd have to fine the lad or threaten him with violence for dropping off otherwise he's always going to chase balls other strikers would leave. That's just Doolan's style and something we should utilise rather than drum out of him. I sense it's going to be difficult to get Erskine, Higgy, Taylor and Doolan all on the field at the same time but that shouldn't necessarily preclude Taylor & Doolan playing together for a good chunk of a game at least. excellent post and points. surely too wise for a woman? i'm beginning to think the junnysaw lag might possibly be right in their observation in latest sitb. Edited February 2, 2014 by yoda-jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) I think that's right but too often yesterday Taylor was very isolated and the gap between him and the midfield was too great , not helped in the first half with too many high balls lumped up the park. We need at least to find someone to play just behind Taylor who can also help in midfield I think we're seeing a repeat of the problem we had when Doolan played alone up front with no support. This was partly due to Lawless's loss of form and Higginbotham's tendency (good player though he is) to play for himself too much. Last year Lawless and Erskine gave Doolan lots of support and chipped in with a good number of goals. Obviously Archie must think bringing in Erskine back can be part of the solution to that problem. A clear problem in the first half yesterday was Bannigan was playing forward midfield (between the two wingers) but while he worked hard as always I don't think he got into positions to support Taylor. Neither did the other two although Elliot as was pointed out was there partly for defensive reasons. I don't think that position suits Bannigan; if he plays further forward it should be wide left. Despite this we still created a few chances but something was lacking. In the second half Bannigan was back in holding midfield position where he was very effective and Prince Buaben was pushed forward. From then on we seemed more dangerous. Doolan of course looked lively when he came on but we were already looking dangerous before he came on. I'm not sure if Doolan with Taylor from the start is our best option now, though I'd thought it worth considering before. We now have the options of playing Bauben - who'll be fitter and more familiar with the team when we next play and Erskine who we all know can play that position. In fact can we play both Erskine and Bauben? Probably but only by pushing Erskine out on the wing so who gets pushed out? I guess it's what's usually called a 'good problem' in that we've now go a choice of attacking options from midfield, not to mention the Doolan/Taylor problem. Though it's only a good problem if you find the right solution. We've got a system which our players are familiar with and gets the best out of most of our players so I think we have to stick with it. Which means the manager has to pick one forward and then make sure the 3 attacking midfielders back him up as much as possible which didn't happen much in the first half yesterday. I'd go with Taylor; then Higginbotham, Bauben, Erskine with holding midfield of Bannigan and Fraser. Doolan is a great option to come on if we are chasing a result. Edited February 2, 2014 by Mr Bunny 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fearchar Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 ...As to Doolan and Taylor playing together I feel this will happen increasingly. Doolan is too good a player to leave on the bench for any length of time. I don't believe you should call this playing a 4-4-2 simply as Doolan will always get pulled sideways and into midfield. You'd have to fine the lad or threaten him with violence for dropping off otherwise he's always going to chase balls other strikers would leave. That's just Doolan's style and something we should utilise rather than drum out of him.... As my progeny no. 1 pointed out yesterday, we seem to have a team that has largely been attractive and successful due to its attacking style, and a formation that is rigidly defensive, leaving a sole striker isolated up front. Surely it's better to devise a formation round the best players we have available, such as the roving nature of Doolan, rather than decide on the formation and then insist on players not playing to take advantage of their various skills. (Bannigan being played too far forward is a case in point.) The results seem all too obvious when you see how few goals we score, either by comparison with chances created or with other teams at the lower level in the Premiership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabTheJag Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Likewise... Taylor - Doolan Erskine Bannigan - Buaben - Fraser Would love to see that at Fir Park. I think we'll need more than 6 players to take on Motherwell, dont you? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 When SOD came on, it gave Gallagher the option of playing short to either him or ATS as opposed to 1st half when his only real option was to kick long. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted February 2, 2014 Members Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Seems to me that Archie is slowly rebuilding the confidence going into the final stages of the regular season. Tightened up significantly at the back and now has plenty of options to mix things around in the attacking half of the field. All the players obviously cant play at the same time. Hopefully this can make us a bit more unpredictable than what we were in the second round of games where everyone cottoned on to what we were doing, invariably the ball going to Higgy to try and create something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wee col Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I would like to see us play without higgy, I think he just gives the ball away far to much. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Think Archie is finally getting it , getting substitutes on earlier so they can actually affect a game,for the Motherwell game can't see Archie going for two up front but I would start with Doolan,thought he looked sharp when he came on and when he's not in the team feel we're a bit one dimensional especially when we're under pressure simply launching the ball in the direction of Lyle Taylor. Putting Taylor on with half an hour to go with his pace and power would be a fantastic asset to have. Agree with last post Higgy flatters to deceive sometimes slowing the game or giving the ball away,though nobody can question the effort he puts in( Erskine out left hand side every time) Glad to see the deadwood getting shipped out quickly rather than pick up a wage for the next year or so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.