Was it a day to leave out Riordan?

[Monts]

We are all surely now aware that the 4 3 3 formation isnt going to work for us.
Yogi is also quoted as saying he felt the game required a physical presence.

So should Derek have been left out? Leaving him out could have paved the way for a 4th midfielder, creating a bit of width, and getting the ball into the box.

Nish and Stokes have more bite about them than Riordan, and also provide more of an aerial threat.

Are we guilty of playing Riordan in games where we cant afford the luxury, and are losing out because of his lack of fight...?

[Mon Dieu4]

Nish and Stokes may have more "bite" about them than Riordan, but Riordan is more likely to score than anyone else who plays, so no he shouldnt have been left out.

[J-C]

We are all surely now aware that the 4 3 3 formation isnt going to work for us.
Yogi is also quoted as saying he felt the game required a physical presence.

So should Derek have been left out? Leaving him out could have paved the way for a 4th midfielder, creating a bit of width, and getting the ball into the box.

Nish and Stokes have more bite about them than Riordan, and also provide more of an aerial threat.

Are we guilty of playing Riordan in games where we cant afford the luxury, and are losing out because of his lack of fight...?

Dropping Nish and playing Deek up front with Stokes should've been the way to go, they seemed to have a lot more understanding between them as shown in previous games.

[HFC 0-7]

We are all surely now aware that the 4 3 3 formation isnt going to work for us.
Yogi is also quoted as saying he felt the game required a physical presence.

So should Derek have been left out? Leaving him out could have paved the way for a 4th midfielder, creating a bit of width, and getting the ball into the box.

Nish and Stokes have more bite about them than Riordan, and also provide more of an aerial threat.

Are we guilty of playing Riordan in games where we cant afford the luxury, and are losing out because of his lack of fight...?

Nish should have been left out! not riordin. Riordin was not in his best position and always poses a threat. Nish didnt seem to pose a threat at all yesterday. Stokes hasnt been playing well, but dropping him may dent his confidence. Yogi has a lot of decisions to make and needs to make them quick. You feel that if Stokes can just get a goal it may spark him into life, but how long would you keep playing him without him getting goals. Riordin is lazy and requires service, service wasnt there because of formation etc. The defense keeps getting changed as well so we dont have a settled team. Its early days and I have confidence in Yogi to make the right decisions!

[matty_f]

I don't think we needed to drop Deek, and at the same time I don't think we necessarily had to have a physical presence at that end of the pitch.

Deek and Stokes are clever enough players to get into scoring positions with passes into feet. They are capable of creating space to get on the end of passes in dangerous areas.

Problem was that we didn't have enough guile and creativity yesterday to get the ball into those areas. No disrespect to Nish, but I'd have left him out in favour of a creative midfielder. Cregg and McBride both have a bit of dig about them, so we should have been able to overcome Hamilton's midfield if we'd gone man for man in numbers.

[Monts]

The point is that yogi want Nish in there for his physical presence. Therefore it wouldnt have been him that was dropped.

Is Riordan too much of a luxury in the tough, hard working games?

[J-C]

We didn't have a physical presence against Celtic and created a load of chances.

[Andy74]

Nish doesn't have a physical presence.

Said it at the time but I'd have kept Curier before signing him. He has his days, or his moments, but you can tell within 10 mins if it's one of those or not. I'm amazed he made it to half time it was that bad.

[Broken Gnome]

The reason Hibs were so bad yesterday was a total lack of movement. You can live with being initially out-strengthed if you have players at least looking for a pass, all we had was static inept rubbish. He might be far from alone in this complaint, but as the central point of our attack Nish is hugely culpable for yesterday. I do think he is slightly hard done by for a lot of the free kicks he should but doesn't get, but he was unforgivably lethargic in his efforts to actually take the ball to feet yesterday. Without that, added to the glaring fact that the combination of McBride/Cregg/Rankin will have less than competent games and you have a tame horrible surrender. Riordan at least does look to take the ball to feet and put in a decent shift, and the notion of taking out your top goalscorer against the 'worst team in the league' seems slightly unneccessary.

[blackpoolhibs]

Nish doesn't have a physical presence.

Said it at the time but I'd have kept Curier before signing him. He has his days, or his moments, but you can tell within 10 mins if it's one of those or not. I'm amazed he made it to half time it was that bad.

:top marks Why do people keep saying this? My last fart had more presence than he does. As you say andy, how he made it to half time was amazing, and why he emerged after half time was even more strange.:bitchy:

[HFC 0-7]

I don't think we needed to drop Deek, and at the same time I don't think we necessarily had to have a physical presence at that end of the pitch.

Deek and Stokes are clever enough players to get into scoring positions with passes into feet. They are capable of creating space to get on the end of passes in dangerous areas.

Problem was that we didn't have enough guile and creativity yesterday to get the ball into those areas. No disrespect to Nish, but I'd have left him out in favour of a creative midfielder. Cregg and McBride both have a bit of dig about them, so we should have been able to overcome Hamilton's midfield if we'd gone man for man in numbers.

Spot on! Stokes and Riordin dont need to be physical to get the ball and have a go, but to get the ball to feet they need service, something that was inmpossible yesterday because we couldnt compete in midfield!

[blackpoolhibs]

Spot on! Stokes and Riordin dont need to be physical to get the ball and have a go, but to get the ball to feet they need service, something that was inmpossible yesterday because we couldnt compete in midfield!

Yip agree with that, in fact stokes and riordan were coming deep to try and get the ball, sometimes virtually on the half way line. Wotherspoon for nish was all that was needed, to give us the width and pace, to deliver balls into the danger areas from a better angle, rather than giving every ball to the forwards 25 yards from out with their backs to goal. There was no variety, it was so slow ponderous and predictable, and easy to defend against.

[ackeygraham]

simple 4-4-2. Drop this 4-5-1 4-3-3 mince....seemples.

[ackeygraham]

simple 4-4-2. Drop this 4-5-1 4-3-3 mince....seemples.

[I Love Lamp]

I think some people are too protective of Riordan. Mark Hughes left Robinho out of almost every away game last season because of a perceived lack of running and effort. If it's possible to leave out a £30m+ signing for every away game for a lack of effort when effort's needed, then there should be no hesitation in doing the same with Riordan WHERE APPROPRIATE.

You get the feeling that some see him as undroppable. He's blessed with inspiration but, away from home, you need effort and fight just as much.

The whole debate sometimes seems to imply that he should be first name on the team sheet every week and any decision to drop him is one to be taken with great solemnity.

[Saorsa]

The point is that yogi want Nish in there for his physical presence. Therefore it wouldnt have been him that was dropped.

Is Riordan too much of a luxury in the tough, hard working games?Nish and physical presence, that's a laugh.

[euro Hibby]

4 - 4 - 2 is the easiest formation to play because all players understand it.

It ensures that you are at least covered at the back and in the middle.

Was not at the game but listened on the radio until 12 minuted from the end.

It sounded really bad and feel sorry for those who witnessed it. Can never imagine why players don't turn up for games when they are so priveledged in life.

Yesterdays defeat takes us back to square one. We do have such a bad away record so it was also to be expected.............

[Monts]

Nish and physical presence, that's a laugh.

Just quoting the manager...

[Weir7]

The point is that yogi want Nish in there for his physical presence. Therefore it wouldnt have been him that was dropped.

Is Riordan too much of a luxury in the tough, hard working games?

For me I cant see that, they boy is weak. Soon as a centre half is near him he falls down. Cant remember ever seing him bully anybody on the pitch.

[hibs1875aye]

I personally never see the point in dropping Riordan unless he is:
a) injured
b) err, that's it

He can score from anywhere at any time. All this Riordans a luxury is rubbish. He is a goalscorer who scores more goals than anyone else. If he keeps doing that, he is doing his job. If you want someone to track back/defend/whatever, get someone who is good at that.

Otherwise, stick Riordan in a position where he can be reasonably be expected to score and let nature take it's course.

Simples, as someone else said :greengrin

[Jack]

I think some people are too protective of Riordan. Mark Hughes left Robinho out of almost every away game last season because of a perceived lack of running and effort. If it's possible to leave out a £30m+ signing for every away game for a lack of effort when effort's needed, then there should be no hesitation in doing the same with Riordan WHERE APPROPRIATE.

You get the feeling that some see him as undroppable. He's blessed with inspiration but, away from home, you need effort and fight just as much.

The whole debate sometimes seems to imply that he should be first name on the team sheet every week and any decision to drop him is one to be taken with great solemnity.

I just about agree with you but then there was the Falkirk game. In away games chances come less often (?) so its more important IMO to have someone who is most likely to take them.

So for me it would be 4-4-2 with Riordan and Stokes up front and Nish coming on as the impact player, if required, like the Celtc game.

[Tyler Durden]

We are all surely now aware that the 4 3 3 formation isnt going to work for us.
Yogi is also quoted as saying he felt the game required a physical presence.

So should Derek have been left out? Leaving him out could have paved the way for a 4th midfielder, creating a bit of width, and getting the ball into the box.

Nish and Stokes have more bite about them than Riordan, and also provide more of an aerial threat.

Are we guilty of playing Riordan in games where we cant afford the luxury, and are losing out because of his lack of fight...?

No. No. And no.

I don't see this lack of fight you mention. After Hanlon missed that sitter it was Riordan who raced back into his own half and committed a "good foul", if there's such a thing, getting himself booked.

He's our best player and can score at anytime from any position. Clearly we have a few problems at the moment but Riordan is not one of them.

P.S. To the other poster who mentioned Robinho, Mark Hughes did not drop him for almost every away game last year. Check your facts.

[ackeygraham]

I think some people are too protective of Riordan. Mark Hughes left Robinho out of almost every away game last season because of a perceived lack of running and effort. If it's possible to leave out a £30m+ signing for every away game for a lack of effort when effort's needed, then there should be no hesitation in doing the same with Riordan WHERE APPROPRIATE.

You get the feeling that some see him as undroppable. He's blessed with inspiration but, away from home, you need effort and fight just as much.

The whole debate sometimes seems to imply that he should be first name on the team sheet every week and any decision to drop him is one to be taken with great solemnity.

I do believe it was his tracking back and chasing a hamilton player which led to the very soft booking he received. I'd say that he has improved his running, etc when not on the ball...... Nish i'd say has improved nothing since last season, would have been better playing a lump of wood up top yesterday.

[blackpoolhibs]

[QUOTE=bernz;2174041]
P.S. To the other poster who mentioned Robinho, Mark Hughes did not drop him for almost every away game last year. Check your facts.

:top marks It was Hamilton we were playing FFS. If we were to go 4-5-1 away to the likes of Rangers or Celtic, i can sort of see the reasons that maybe Riordan would be sacrificed, something Mowbray did regularly with him in Glasgow. But away games to Hamilton are not games you drop your most natural goalscorer. :bitchy:

[hibsbollah]

Riordan should play every week he's fit. Creating goals out of nothing isnt something many other players have on their CV.

[Big Frank]

Riordan should play every week he's fit. Creating goals out of nothing isnt something many other players have on their CV.

I agree, though if a player is, for example lazy, week in week out he should be dropped (not saying riordan is..).

Back to the OP, I'm not sure that deeks should have been benched for this, its that I don't believe that just because we come up against a team who has 2 large centre half, we don't necessarily need to have a large forward. It lends itself to hoying the ball up front (or spuz imbalanced with crouch at the Lane on Saturday). Play the ball on the deck and 9 times out of ten the nippy / small forward will roast the huddy defender.

Stokes and Riordan too far apart makes for a toothless attack.