Jump to content

Archie's Team Selection and Substituitons


thru thin and thin
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am just back from the piggery, and that is the angriest I have felt our fans have been against Archie's starting line up.

He states we are going to have a go - then puts out a side with no pace, width and Barton back in midfield!

Does he do that to annoy us?

If we had started the way we did against Rangers during the week - who knows, we might be in the quarter finals.

On the positive side we get back into the game and have a chance at half time. Most fans wanted Archie to change it by bringing on a sub or two and have a go for it. (Where have I heard that before?)

As usual, as long as we are in the game, Archie never changes anything. Subs come on after we go behind 3-1.

This is a recurring theme with Archie's use of substitutes.

 Why O why, can we not pick our strongest and most positive team and let the opposition worry about us?

IMO  Archie keeps changing the starting line up to suit how he thinks we can nullify the opposition. Always conservative and gives too much respect to the opposition. Especially the Old Firm.

The last week was our best opportunity in Archie's reign to defeat the Old Firm. We failed yet again!

I have followed the Jags for over 55 years, and I fear we will never win a cup, or ever beat the Bigot Brothers as long as Archie persists with his tactics.

I would love it if he could grow a pair and prove me wrong!

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Duke Gekantawa said:

Just to clarify (to the OP). Do you think this period of relative success, including a promotion, a top 6 finish last season and staying up each season while being safe by the final round of fixtures, has all happened despite of the team picked by the manager and his subs? Is that right?

Deleted because I now realise what you meant.

Edited by Barney Rubble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McD said:

agree with everything you say T.T.A.T....Why no Storey or Sammon on from the start beggers belief      when I saw   the team selection at 11.20 this morning I was for turning around and heading back home..

It’s funny how, over thr past few seasons, the manager’s got stick for not playing Doolan  and Erskine. Now it’s thr opposite. Doolan scored. Erskine was possibly our best player. Sammon scored as an impact sub. We scored 2 at Parkhead. It seems to me that the game wasn’t lost because of the front players picked

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

Assuming you mean that the final round of fixtures is the split, the only time we've been safe by the final round of fixtures was last season.

No, I mean that we’ve always gone into the actual (post split) final fixture safe

Edited by Duke Gekantawa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Duke Gekantawa said:

It’s funny how, over thr past few seasons, the manager’s got stick for not playing Doolan  and Erskine. Now it’s thr opposite. Doolan scored. Erskine was possibly our best player. Sammon scored as an impact sub. We scored 2 at Parkhead. It seems to me that the game wasn’t lost because of the front players picked

Erskine's been a conundrum for a while now. I honestly thought he had a bit of a howler today, and yet he had two assists and a wonderful tackle and cross for a possible third at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

Erskine's been a conundrum for a while now. I honestly thought he had a bit of a howler today, and yet he had two assists and a wonderful tackle and cross for a possible third at the end.

Erskine has always been a conundrum! How many times have I seen him do nothing except score a blinder or make the winner. Your post could refer to any number of his performances! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archibald's team selection and performances against the 'Old Firm' (and other big teams) may be called into question, but they must be balanced against the team selection and performances against teams around us in the league, in which games we have performed consistently well (it could hardly have been any other way given our relative success in the league over the last few years). It could be that Archie may take a gamble on our chances of winning a 'good' point or three in these games against winning the games that define our season against the teams around us. It doesn't necessarily need to be exclusive, but history to date shows Archie has done very well at striking the correct balance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, thru thin and thin said:

I am just back from the piggery, and that is the angriest I have felt our fans have been against Archie's starting line up.

 

Speak for yourself by all means.  Please don't guess how other fans attending viewed the team selection.  Nobody I spoke to during or after the game was "angry" at the team selection. Confused maybe, but angry? Personally I thought it strange that Abdul didn't start but perhaps the reason for that wasn't tactical. Anyway can you honestly say that when Osman came on he made much of a difference? 

I take your point about about the way we started against sevco and the way we started today. However were you pleased with the way we finished the game on Tuesday night? Dools and Erskine, neither with any pace, coming on as subs to play alongside a tiring Storey simply didn't work.  The other side of the coin is the high tempo way we finished today with Doolan being replaced by Sammon. FFS they were our two scorers. 

The bulk of what went wrong today went wrong in the first few minutes. Had we not been caught so cold (nothing to do with team selection unless you want Cargill dropped)  then we might be appreciating Archie's tactics/team selection. 

Edited by lady-isobel-barnett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Speak for yourself by all means.  Please don't guess how other fans attending viewed the team selection.  Nobody I spoke to during or after the game was "angry" at the team selection. Confused maybe, but angry? Personally I thought it strange that Abdul didn't start but perhaps the reason for that wasn't tactical. Anyway can you honestly say that when Osman came on he made much of a difference? 

I take your point about about the way we started against sevco and the way we started today. However were you pleased with the way we finished the game on Tuesday night? Dools and Erskine, neither with any pace, coming on as subs to play alongside a tiring Storey simply didn't work.  The other side of the coin is the high tempo way we finished today with Doolan being replaced by Sammon. FFS they were our two scorers. 

The bulk of what went wrong today went wrong in the first few minutes. Had we not been caught so cold (nothing to do with team selection unless you want Cargill dropped)  then we might be appreciating Archie's tactics/team selection. 

Speak for yourself, also. You state that the fans you spoke to  were perhaps confused, but not angry, that is your assumption.

In the heat of the moment, during the first 10 minutes when our defence "couldn't keep weans out of a close", and the 2 cheap goals were conceded. Many fans in and around where I was sitting, which was slap bang in the middle of the Jags support, were aiming insults and abuse at Archie. Many blaming the team selection as the reason for getting caught cold. I am sure that this was borne out of frustration and disappointment which most certainly can quickly develop into such angry outbursts.

You disagree, when you state that , "being caught cold had nothing to do with team selection" and you are entitled to that viewpoint.

I am sure you will admit that voicing opinions that may differ is exactly what the forums are all about.

Moving forward, I was intrigued to read in the Sunday papers, Kris Doolan making a case for Archie to play both Doolan and Sammon up front. Indeed, Doolan thinks they would complement each other well. This is the first time I can remember any player during Archie's reign making a public statement about how the team should play. Archie's response seems to be that he wishes to stick with the lone striker role.

Any thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thru thin and thin said:

Speak for yourself, also. You state that the fans you spoke to  were perhaps confused, but not angry, that is your assumption.

In the heat of the moment, during the first 10 minutes when our defence "couldn't keep weans out of a close", and the 2 cheap goals were conceded. Many fans in and around where I was sitting, which was slap bang in the middle of the Jags support, were aiming insults and abuse at Archie. Many blaming the team selection as the reason for getting caught cold. I am sure that this was borne out of frustration and disappointment which most certainly can quickly develop into such angry outbursts.

You disagree, when you state that , "being caught cold had nothing to do with team selection" and you are entitled to that viewpoint.

I am sure you will admit that voicing opinions that may differ is exactly what the forums are all about.

Moving forward, I was intrigued to read in the Sunday papers, Kris Doolan making a case for Archie to play both Doolan and Sammon up front. Indeed, Doolan thinks they would complement each other well. This is the first time I can remember any player during Archie's reign making a public statement about how the team should play. Archie's response seems to be that he wishes to stick with the lone striker role.

Any thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apologies for my wording. I'm never the best on a Saturday night and the extra two hours in the pub didn't help.:)

Of course voicing your opinion is what the forum is all about. Couldn't agree more. Maybe both of us should be doing just that rather than speaking for others.

Personally I prefer to see the side play one up with three attacking mids. There is tho' always times when we can go 2up especially when we play three at the back. I'd have thought Doolan would prefer partnering Storey than Sammon but a Doolan/Sammon partnership sounds good to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, thru thin and thin said:

Speak for yourself, also. You state that the fans you spoke to  were perhaps confused, but not angry, that is your assumption.

In the heat of the moment, during the first 10 minutes when our defence "couldn't keep weans out of a close", and the 2 cheap goals were conceded. Many fans in and around where I was sitting, which was slap bang in the middle of the Jags support, were aiming insults and abuse at Archie. Many blaming the team selection as the reason for getting caught cold. I am sure that this was borne out of frustration and disappointment which most certainly can quickly develop into such angry outbursts.

 

Moving forward, I was intrigued to read in the Sunday papers, Kris Doolan making a case for Archie to play both Doolan and Sammon up front. Indeed, Doolan thinks they would complement each other well. This is the first time I can remember any player during Archie's reign making a public statement about how the team should play. Archie's response seems to be that he wishes to stick with the lone striker role.

Doolan has said this before i think it was on jagzone     :thumbsup2:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thru thin and thin said:

................. Many fans in and around where I was sitting, which was slap bang in the middle of the Jags support, were aiming insults and abuse at Archie. Many blaming the team selection as the reason for getting caught cold. I am sure that this was borne out of frustration and disappointment which most certainly can quickly develop into such angry outbursts.
 

Any thoughts?

I can honestly say that never once, in all the Thistle games I went to, did I ever hurl insults, abuse or profanities at any Thistle player or manager. I may have voiced my opinion to my fellow Jags fans around me, but that was the extent of any complaints I had.

I do understand that most forked out their hard earned money to attend and feel that entitles them to do whatever they see fit to let their feelings be known.

I was never in that camp. I always viewed that as a negative and not supportive of the team and/or manager.

Not suggesting one approach is any worse or better the the other. ....to each his own.

1 hour ago, thru thin and thin said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...