Tactics

[Jdawg]

If you play a 4-4-2 but play 4 cm's then you need 2 fullbacks that give you width. If they don't then you get what happened today. Slow, clueless football.

In this formation, fullbacks must bomb forward not ***** themselves 10m in the opposition half, cut inside and pass the buck.

Fyvie and Bartley against Ayr with McGinn out left?

In CM, Fyvie holding, McGinn beside him, Shinnie and another with some PACE!!!!

[MWHIBBIES]

The FIFA series has a lot to answer for IMO. Everyone seems to think pace is a free win. We won 5 games playing these players, losing one game doesn't make the system flawed and the players too slow. If we win 5 games for every 1 loss we'll finish with 90+ points and be champs by a mile.

[Eyrie]

The problem isn't the pace of the players but the pace of the play.

Too often today we stopped trying to go forward in favour of putting a foot on the ball and then passing it backwards and hoping that someone else might create an opening. That's never going to work against a packed defence because we don't have players skillful enough to make the pass or intelligent enough to make the run required to unlock the defence. If we did, then they wouldn't be at this level for long.

[HappyAsHellas]

Playing with pace is very effective if you have space to run into. With a 9 man defence like today there is no space therefore you have to use the ball in a better manner. Ayr slowed the game to snails pace and we let them away with it. Quicker passing in the final third and quicker delivery into the box would have yielded a better result. Was Stubbs back today?

[Jdawg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The FIFA series has a lot to answer for IMO. Everyone seems to think pace is a free win. We won 5 games playing these players, losing one game doesn't make the system flawed and the players too slow. If we win 5 games for every 1 loss we'll finish with 90+ points and be champs by a mile.

where did I say pace is a free win? Playing 4 centre mids is not the answer, especially 2 defensive midfielders and against Ayr.

[Pete]

I don't think Fyvie played as a defensive midfielder yesterday. Bartley broke things up while Fyvie got forward more out of the two,

The "tactics" were fine until Bartley got sent off as we were winning and Ayr didn't threaten us whatsoever. Nothing to do with width, pace, or whatever theory the next East stand Mourinho comes up with.

There's no soul searching or tactical analysis to be done here. Sending offs change games and "**** happens is the conclusion.

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think Fyvie played as a defensive midfielder yesterday. Bartley broke things up while Fyvie got forward more out of the two,

The "tactics" were fine until Bartley got sent off as we were winning and Ayr didn't threaten us whatsoever. Nothing to do with width, pace, or whatever theory the next East stand Mourinho comes up with.

There's no soul searching or tactical analysis to be done here. Sending offs change games and "**** happens is the conclusion.

Fyvie was far too deep in the 1st half, he was sitting just in front of the 2 CH's, I noticed at the start of the 2nd he was pushing higher up and we looked a lot livelier.

It's not the tactics but what we do with them, there was zero tempo in the 1st half and we sat too deep, it's not true pace either but an injection of pace of pass and tempo, far too often players are receiving balls whilst standing still instead of on the move, pass and move.

[The Leith Dutch]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There's no soul searching or tactical analysis to be done here. Sending offs change games and "**** happens is the conclusion.

Would disagree. I don't think the sending off lost us the game.

I don't think we looked particularly like we were playing a man down after Bartley went off.
Yes they were more in the game and yes they had a bit more belief but it didn't feel like a 10 v 11.

I think we lost yesterday due to our inability - and it's been going on for the last two seasons now - to convert dominant performances against pretty poor sides into goals.

I think a lot of people on here feel there are tactical reasons involved in that and for me we looked very pedestrian going forward yesterday.

We have good players but they don't shoot well from distance, the wing backs don't cross particularly well and good as people like McGinn are I think expecting him and Shinnie to slip sliderule passes through 11 men packing the box is asking too much.

[RedHibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Would disagree. I don't think the sending off lost us the game.

I don't think we looked particularly like we were playing a man down after Bartley went off.
Yes they were more in the game and yes they had a bit more belief but it didn't feel like a 10 v 11.

I think we lost yesterday due to our inability - and it's been going on for the last two seasons now - to convert dominant performances against pretty poor sides into goals.

I think a lot of people on here feel there are tactical reasons involved in that and for me we looked very pedestrian going forward yesterday.

We have good players but they don't shoot well from distance, the wing backs don't cross particularly well and good as people like McGinn are I think expecting him and Shinnie to slip sliderule passes through 11 men packing the box is asking too much.

Absolutely spot on.

[biotech]

Think it's relatively simple. We have (mostly) better players. So, if we play at a higher tempo than the opposition.
We'll win most of the games.

On an odd occation (e.g. Ayr) we will get caught out, but mostly we win. Keep the tempo high, lads!