Jump to content

QOS away 1/12/18


Auld Jag
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, simoncordiner said:

Naismith thought we were unlucky. 

C42805FE-7DA4-463A-B6EF-77ED9CB3FEF3.png

The challenge for everybody at the club is now to get of the bottom of the league. I am sure  when he was brought in his challenge was to get us promoted. Just staying in this league, if we manage that is not what he was hired for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jlsarmy said:

Why can’t you judge Gary Caldwell, the whole idea of a manager at our level is to come in and improve players , we need to get a reality check, in the January window there won’t be any players bought for money , it’ll be untried players, players without Clubs or Loan Players 

Stevie Clarke took over at Kilmarnock, same players as Lee McCullough and their progress is there for all to see and at higher level Brendan Rodgers has done the same at Celtic.

When Caldwell did his interview, he seemingly had a portfolio of all the players and their strengths and weaknesses and where improvements could be made , so far this appointment has been an absolute disaster .

This 100%.

I don't know if you were at the game today, jlsarmy but to back up your post of a couple of days ago we did play an ill fated 3-5-2.  Plus points ...1/ we got Christie and Penrice further forward and the defence remained reasonably solid. Minus points 1/ Elliott & Penrice rarely got an advanced cross in the whole game and thus effectively played like full backs rather than wingbacks. 2/following on from that we thus had absolutely no width whatsoever. 3/None of the centrebacks regularly crossed the halfway line. With QoS adopting a Thistle like backing off in midfield the game was crying out for one of the centrebacks to drive forward with the ball.

So imo we played no worse than in our previous two encounters (maybe even a tad better). Further I didn't think any of the players played like complete duds, and perhaps if we hadn't played to such a negative system we might just have created enough to squeeze a goal or two. Not sure of all this army team bonding thingy (presumably I suppose to bring out a positive attitude) when the manager goes in the opposite direction.  Main point in support of your post, Caldwell can't escape criticism today and the pot to piss in argument doesn't stand up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Auld Jag said:

Or is Caldwell better at interviews than managing?

Could be, could be.

Either way it's astonishing that his results continue to prolong the downward trajectory that has been so sorely evident since Easter 2017.

We can no longer blame Barton, Edwards, Osman for this mess.

Something else is at the root of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, joe the driver said:

Heard on the radio on the way home from Dumfries that 11 ex Thistle players scored in Scotland today. 

That kinda tells you a lot about the quality of our decision making regarding player retention and recruitment.

 And theUnfortunately, this is not a new phenomenon: the amount of players we have deemed surplus to requirements nd then came back to bite us on the backside!

Mind you I guess most teams could say that really.

8 hours ago, That 1 jags fan said:

How did the guy that got flung out,  get found with the ball was it obvious he had it hard to see what happened sitting on the opposite side.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Barney Rubble said:

Could be, could be.

Either way it's astonishing that his results continue to prolong the downward trajectory that has been so sorely evident since Easter 2017.

We can no longer blame Barton, Edwards, Osman for this mess.

Something else is at the root of this.

Aye, we’re rank rotten!:secret:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

This 100%.

I don't know if you were at the game today, jlsarmy but to back up your post of a couple of days ago we did play an ill fated 3-5-2.  Plus points ...1/ we got Christie and Penrice further forward and the defence remained reasonably solid. Minus points 1/ Elliott & Penrice rarely got an advanced cross in the whole game and thus effectively played like full backs rather than wingbacks. 2/following on from that we thus had absolutely no width whatsoever. 3/None of the centrebacks regularly crossed the halfway line. With QoS adopting a Thistle like backing off in midfield the game was crying out for one of the centrebacks to drive forward with the ball.

So imo we played no worse than in our previous two encounters (maybe even a tad better). Further I didn't think any of the players played like complete duds, and perhaps if we hadn't played to such a negative system we might just have created enough to squeeze a goal or two. Not sure of all this army team bonding thingy (presumably I suppose to bring out a positive attitude) when the manager goes in the opposite direction.  Main point in support of your post, Caldwell can't escape criticism today and the pot to piss in argument doesn't stand up.

Wasn’t at the game yesterday due to work commitments and never like criticising on a game I hadn’t been to . Looked at the team before the game and was worried that it was a 3 at the back system that Caldwell was going to play .

We haven’t got the personnel to play that system, no wing backs as such and no Centre half to push on like Adam Barton did a couple of years ago to give us an extra man in midfield, so as you said it becomes quite a negative set up.

Watched Ayr United the other night when they ran riot against Dundee United and they played with a freedom to express themselves especially Declan McDaid which is an irony in itself .McCall has done a great job with basically journeymen football players ( Moffat , Jamie Adams etc complimented with the ability of Shankland and McDaid) , but the key point for me is he is playing a system that suits his players , in my opinion we’ve got to do the same with the personnel we’ve got at our disposal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

, but the key point for me is he is playing a system that suits his players , in my opinion we’ve got to do the same with the personnel we’ve got at our disposal.

 

I'm not sure there is a system that would suit the players we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, scotty said:

I'm not sure there is a system that would suit the players we have.

This is where I strongly disagree. I think the squad is poorly balanced but there is the ability and enough players to compete in this league.  A good manager could build a team from what we have.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

This 100%.

I don't know if you were at the game today, jlsarmy but to back up your post of a couple of days ago we did play an ill fated 3-5-2.  Plus points ...1/ we got Christie and Penrice further forward and the defence remained reasonably solid. Minus points 1/ Elliott & Penrice rarely got an advanced cross in the whole game and thus effectively played like full backs rather than wingbacks. 2/following on from that we thus had absolutely no width whatsoever. 3/None of the centrebacks regularly crossed the halfway line. With QoS adopting a Thistle like backing off in midfield the game was crying out for one of the centrebacks to drive forward with the ball.

So imo we played no worse than in our previous two encounters (maybe even a tad better). Further I didn't think any of the players played like complete duds, and perhaps if we hadn't played to such a negative system we might just have created enough to squeeze a goal or two. Not sure of all this army team bonding thingy (presumably I suppose to bring out a positive attitude) when the manager goes in the opposite direction.  Main point in support of your post, Caldwell can't escape criticism today and the pot to piss in argument doesn't stand up.

Not at the game but think it was too much a risk to have the two center backs against Dobbie. Looked at the goal and it's  Scobbie getting dragged out of position by covering Banzo that is the cause of the goal. Should have been a foul on Banzo but it's one that you don't get all the time. 

One thing the window has to bring is the end of the Keown/McGinty partnership.  Both should have done much better at the goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alan Murray said:

Not at the game but think it was too much a risk to have the two center backs against Dobbie. Looked at the goal and it's  Scobbie getting dragged out of position by covering Banzo that is the cause of the goal. Should have been a foul on Banzo but it's one that you don't get all the time. 

One thing the window has to bring is the end of the Keown/McGinty partnership.  Both should have done much better at the goal. 

The risk playing 3 at the back didn’t work and never usually does , are we going to set up for a damage limitation exercise every time we play against a half decent striker, I can’t remember the last time we played that system we actually won a game , possibly about 2 years ago when Barton was playing in the middle of a 3

One thing we do agree on is the McGinty / Keown partnership isn’t good enough.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jlsarmy said:

We haven’t got the personnel to play that system, no wing backs as such and no Centre half to push on like Adam Barton did a couple of years ago to give us an extra man in midfield, so as you said it becomes quite a negative set up.

Well, exactly as you say re the centrebacks. Scobbie, tho' I believe he's organisationly sound, is about the last player you'd look to re breaking out of defence.  And of course it's usually the middle of the three that's charged with that role. But yesterday there were countless opportunities for Keown & McGinty (especially the former) to carry on up the park with the ball. Instead  they played the ball from around the halfway line (no further) and (as expected) their tame passes were inevitably cut out. by a Queens player.

I differ slightly in so much that I think that Elliott and Penrice are well equipped to play wingback effectively at this level. As said previously it's unfortunate that Christie with his poorer delivery is the one who plays the wingback role the better. Penrice, who has quality re a final ball doesn't push forward nearly often enough, tho' I'm sure he's well able to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, allyo said:

This is where I strongly disagree. I think the squad is poorly balanced but there is the ability and enough players to compete in this league.  A good manager could build a team from what we have.

That's fine but just what system would you play and with which players. There are plenty fans giving plenty of different ideas but not much consensus. (apart from binning most of the squad)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, scotty said:

That's fine but just what system would you play and with which players. There are plenty fans giving plenty of different ideas but not much consensus. (apart from binning most of the squad)

It's not my job. But on the basis that we've played a pretty standard 4-2-3-1 for the last few years, dating back to McNamara (and beyond), we still have players to play their natural role and cover every position. We have three fit (ish) centre backs for two positions, we have five central midfielders for two places. We have at least four who could fit in the forward three and we have two fit strikers for one place. We're short at full back, but  it was Caldwell's decision (I assume) to reduce our cover there, and there's no reason (without injuries) why Elliott and Penrice can't see us through to the window. What we have is a bunch of underperforming players and no team. A manager has to be sorting that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, sandy said:

As it stands, Caldwell has 1 point from 7 games. Archie & Shaggy got 9 points from 8 games.

Progress?

I know you defended Archie more than most. But I think he had to be replaced. The thing was to replace him with a better manager and at the moment that is not what we have done. December is a  big month for Thistle and Caldwell.

Edited by Auld Jag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

I know you defended Archie more than most. But I think he had to be replaced. The thing was to replace him with a better manager and at the moment that is not what we have done. December is a  big month for Thistle and Caldwell.

You are probably right that Archie should have gone, but a lot of people who wanted him gone didn’t really care who replaced him saying that anybody could do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

You are probably right that Archie should have gone, but a lot of people who wanted him gone didn’t really care who replaced him saying that anybody could do better.

I wasn't one that said that. In fact I thought the board did the right thing keeping him on. But as I said when he was sacked and since. Sacking him might have been the right decision but we also had to get the right one in and so far the board have failed.

  • Like 1
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...