Canadian Arab wrote:

The coaching ethos on display is an approach that's used to coach and develop young players, so they have the technical abilities required when they're part of a good team. For that purpose, it works.

Where it doesn't work is when you are actually in charge of a real men's team playing at a good level. The sort of guys who persist with that, because it's the only way they know, are the guys who refer to themselves as a Head Coach or a Technical Director of a professional team, rather than as the Manager.

So when Goodwin came in, as Manager, I was happy enough. Someone who has played at a high level and who knows what players out on the pitch need to do to win a game.

Unfortunately he seems to have thrown away his real life game knowledge and, as others have said, is massively over-thinking things. He's not one of the iPad crowd, but he's managing as if he is. He can't be criticised for having no plan B, like so many of our recent gaffers. He's tried plan B, C, D, E, F and G - all in the past few games. And every single one of his plans is over-thought.

FWIW, I recall something Neilson said when he was in charge, along the lines of "people get hung up on 4-4-2 versus 3-5-2 etc., when in reality players are doing similar jobs but in an area of the park that's only 5 yards away from where it was in a different formation" (I'm paraphrasing). I completely disagree with that. It takes half a season working with a group of players to get them really proficient at playing one system. The way in which you create and exploit space in a 4-4-2 is very different from a 3-5-2 - different players making different runs from different areas into different areas at different times, and the timing of everything is critical. If you have been playing a 4-4-2 and you want 3-5-2 as your plan B, be prepared to spend many weeks working on it so that players automatically do the right things at the right times. My point being that I'll credit Goodwin for trying different formations and approaches to try and find something that works - but it's not going to work because working in training for one week on something a bit different is not remotely close to enough time, and we are seeing the end result on a Saturday when players look like they're not sure what their jobs are.

Keep it simple and direct. We should be battering these teams. And hope that it's not already too late.

 
Good insightful post,any chance you can email this to Greybeard before Saturday?

Go and watch some 1970s football on YouTube and tell me it's not better.
Games gone soft.

"It's football Jim, but not as we know it".

Stillliving wrote:

SlatefordArab wrote:

100% agree with the original post.   It is sooooo boring to watch.  On Saturday in the 1st half we had a throw 10 yards from ICTs goal line.   5 seconds later, Walton had the ball as we'd played it safe and passed it all the way back.  I don't get it.   How is that entertaining to watch or as a player interesting to play in?  if I am a wide player, I want to take on the full back and make him look daft and get the ball in the box.

Analysis and stats have ruined the game.  Seriously, who gives a fuck about possession stats and all this other stuff they come out with now?  I just want to watch tackles, shots, chances, mistakes, saves.   Chuck VAR in to the equation and I am almost chucking it after 40 years of going.  In fact, it is only my love of United that is keeping me involved in football I would say - and that's coming from somebody who was an obsessive. 

Fuck you Guardiola.

 
I did see on more than one occasion the ICT keeper kicking the ball straight through to our keeper, that counts as old school.

Jim would be counting that as an effort on target and inserting it into our XG stats.


 

Stillliving wrote:

Go and watch some 1970s football on YouTube and tell me it's not better.
Games gone soft.

 
Morton reminded me of 70s and 80s football.

Hard as fuck and kick anything that moves, direct stuff, keeper was kicking it out like Peter Shilton, time wasting the lot.

The ground hasn't been touched from the 70s, half the crowd had flares on and the Bee Gees were getting belted out over the wireless.

😃

CCX2 2010 wrote:

Stillliving wrote:

Go and watch some 1970s football on YouTube and tell me it's not better.
Games gone soft.

 
Morton reminded me of 70s and 80s football.

Hard as fuck and kick anything that moves, direct stuff, keeper was kicking it out like Peter Shilton, time wasting the lot.

The ground hasn't been touched from the 70s, half the crowd had flares on and the Bee Gees were getting belted out over the wireless.

😃

Beat our 'Galacticos' at Tannadice with those 70s tactics with a far inferior team than ours (on paper).  Their fans seemed quite happy with that.  Ours didn't.

Things that were better in the 70s

1 No use of the phrase excessive force
2 metal screw in studs
3 No clowns with holes in the back of their socks.
4 changing ends at half time.
5 Only one substitute.
6 keepers not wearing gloves
7 the shoulder charge
8 no use of under armour
9 50pence to get in
10 hip flasks in jackets.

That's 10 for starters I'm sure there's more

Last edited by Stillliving (25/3/2024 6:13 pm)

CCX2 2010 wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

CCX2 2010 wrote:

 
Morton reminded me of 70s and 80s football.

Hard as fuck and kick anything that moves, direct stuff, keeper was kicking it out like Peter Shilton, time wasting the lot.

The ground hasn't been touched from the 70s, half the crowd had flares on and the Bee Gees were getting belted out over the wireless.

😃

Beat our 'Galacticos' at Tannadice with those 70s tactics with a far inferior team than ours (on paper).  Their fans seemed quite happy with that.  Ours didn't.

Yes they did that day, a last minute winner, would have any fan happy.

I don't think the Dougie Imrie approach to football though is going down to well of late though.

That's the problem with fans.  Imrie is playing to his strengths in terms of the squad at his disposal.  They are limited but his 15 match unbeaten run (with an inferior squad to most) tells me that he is tactically way ahead of Goodwin and who is to say that he wouldn't adapt his tactics if he has better players?

Last edited by Finn Seemann (25/3/2024 8:55 pm)

David_Blunkett wrote:

Playing to your strengths, there's an idea.

Instead of coaching it out of them.
 

To be fair to Goodwin, I'm not sure what the strengths of our squad are, but given he is responsible for hiring or retaining most of them you'd think he'd know.  He doesn't though and doesn't seem to recognise that the 'style' he is imposing on them doesn't suit them.  

We've gone a few weeks now since our downturn in results (the form has always been poor) and Goodwin seems totally clueless as to how to get out of that.  He's mucked about with the starting line up to negative effect and still seems incapable of making a subby that actually changes the game (I'm excluding any that should have been in the starting line up in the first place (see Moult v ICT)).  He watches Watt give him feck all nine games out of ten but very rarely is he out of the team.  He's got two CHs that don't play or hardly play when the favoured ones are 'fit', even when they are way off form (or clearly not fit).

Goodwin isn't modern football, he's just not very good and needs emptied soonest.  I still, probably foolishly, retain a glimmer of hope that we can win this league (that comes from a glaringly obvious realisation that everyone else in the league is also crap (including Raith - who I watched lose to an incredibly poor Livingston side a couple of months back)), but it is wholly clear to me that Goodwin cannot be in charge next season and on that basis we should be replacing him now.

Last edited by Finn Seemann (26/3/2024 9:23 am)

David_Blunkett wrote:

Was gonna reply on yesterdays match thread, but it's a general rant rather than specifically about that game.

Football is a relatively simple game, that has somehow been turned into a massively overcomplicated mess, because one guy with all the financial backing he needed, has coached 3 teams, full of superstars and this is now seen as the only proper way to play.

In almost every position we have better players than our opponents in this league. We've shot ourselves in the foot so often it's laughable, and in most cases the damage has been done before they take the park.

The calibre of players we've signed, the financial outlay to get these guys, we should be getting way more from them.

Often at games we still and ask ourselves "What to they do in training all week?" Well, the answer is right in front of you.

It's low intensity, pass, pass, go backwards, pass, don't take risks, pad out the stats football, football is meant to be for the fans, who in their right mind wants to watch 11 plodders try and make pretty patterns?

How the fuck can anyone enjoy the Airdrie style of trying to suck the life our of the opposition?

It's fucking shite. Fuck them all, fuck your clipboards, 48 page opponent dossier and fuck your XG, Bee Gee and Kenny G.

 
One of the things that is becoming common, is new universities eg Manchester Metropolitan are trying to teach a model of how football should be played. They try and apply the Bill Belichick New England Patriots philosophy to football. Much of this merely theory applied to another sport. The whole playing out from the back approach has become part of the philosophy. Interestingly if you watch Airdrie play, they, religiously follow this philosophy. Coincidentally, Rhys McCabe happens to be an Associate of  Consilium Ltd - a sports agency set up by Mike Martin and Jackie McNamara. His aunt is Shelley Kerr MSc (Merit).

The problem I have, is, that 1) Anyone seems to get admitted to the courses with no previous formal qualifications, and 2) They people teaching have never played football.

It’s one thing for Man City to play out from the back (and retain possession with one touch passing), but can you replicate this at lower league levels? I think we are in danger of getting a breed of DoF or Sporting Directors who impose a philosophy on a coach. If the team does not achieve success, the coach is sacked and someone else is appointed. The philosophy cannot be questioned.

In our case we have an owner (investor), who, delegates the running of the club to others. Who does he ask now? And what are their credentials?

Tek wrote:

Macbonzo wrote:

David_Blunkett wrote:

Was gonna reply on yesterdays match thread, but it's a general rant rather than specifically about that game.

Football is a relatively simple game, that has somehow been turned into a massively overcomplicated mess, because one guy with all the financial backing he needed, has coached 3 teams, full of superstars and this is now seen as the only proper way to play.

In almost every position we have better players than our opponents in this league. We've shot ourselves in the foot so often it's laughable, and in most cases the damage has been done before they take the park.

The calibre of players we've signed, the financial outlay to get these guys, we should be getting way more from them.

Often at games we still and ask ourselves "What to they do in training all week?" Well, the answer is right in front of you.

It's low intensity, pass, pass, go backwards, pass, don't take risks, pad out the stats football, football is meant to be for the fans, who in their right mind wants to watch 11 plodders try and make pretty patterns?

How the fuck can anyone enjoy the Airdrie style of trying to suck the life our of the opposition?

It's fucking shite. Fuck them all, fuck your clipboards, 48 page opponent dossier and fuck your XG, Bee Gee and Kenny G.

 
One of the things that is becoming common, is new universities eg Manchester Metropolitan are trying to teach a model of how football should be played. They try and apply the Bill Belichick New England Patriots philosophy to football. Much of this merely theory applied to another sport. The whole playing out from the back approach has become part of the philosophy. Interestingly if you watch Airdrie play, they, religiously follow this philosophy. Coincidentally, Rhys McCabe happens to be an Associate of Consilium Ltd - a sports agency set up by Mike Martin and Jackie McNamara. His aunt is Shelley Kerr MSc (Merit).

The problem I have, is, that 1) Anyone seems to get admitted to the courses with no previous formal qualifications, and 2) They people teaching have never played football.

It’s one thing for Man City to play out from the back (and retain possession with one touch passing), but can you replicate this at lower league levels? I think we are in danger of getting a breed of DoF or Sporting Directors who impose a philosophy on a coach. If the team does not achieve success, the coach is sacked and someone else is appointed. The philosophy cannot be questioned.

In our case we have an owner (investor), who, delegates the running of the club to others. Who does he ask now? And what are their credentials?

Fantastic post.

A lot of good points made there.

I too cannot stand this philosophy of 'play it out from the back' at all costs. Cost Scotland their losing goal against Northern Ireland tonight when a good old fashioned hoof up the park would have ensured no loss.

Only thing i think you are being a wee bit harsh on is Airdire and Rhys McCabe. Yes, they are a pass from the back team, but i have actually been very impressed with them at times this season. Think there's a wee bit more to them.

He's in under two seasons won promotion from League One, the Challenge Cup and i think they will be in the Play-Off's. 

His 'association' with Consilium is possibly as simple as they represent him as a player (he's still registered as a player on Airdrie's books).
 

In this country we have a massive issue about how the game is played.  I remember going to Barcelona with my son to an international tournament with some lower level Spanish Academy teams.  Technically they were far superior, but our boys got to the semi by more or less kicking them off the park as they tried to pass it around us.  When they met boys who were a little stronger and technically better there was no competition.  Couple of years later the best technical player in my son's team was dropped to the team and division below as he didn't fit the physical side of playing first division U14 football in Edinburgh (according to the 'coach' - who's Dad used to be a scout for Man U therefore knew everything...).  That boy has been at the Getafe academy for a couple of years and I believe has just been named in the Egypt U19 squad.  Yet his footballing talent was simply ignored at grassroots level in Scotland.

So I don't think the issue is that we shouldn't be playing pass around the back football, it's that our system is set up to produce players who can't do it.  Until grassroots football is sorted we'll continue to produce flawed players.  My wee Egyptian kid now plays right back.  He has infinitely more talent than Grimshaw and he went to the Man U academy - wonder who scouted him...

Macbonzo wrote:

Finn Seemann wrote:

Tek wrote:

Fantastic post.

A lot of good points made there.

I too cannot stand this philosophy of 'play it out from the back' at all costs. Cost Scotland their losing goal against Northern Ireland tonight when a good old fashioned hoof up the park would have ensured no loss.

Only thing i think you are being a wee bit harsh on is Airdire and Rhys McCabe. Yes, they are a pass from the back team, but i have actually been very impressed with them at times this season. Think there's a wee bit more to them.

He's in under two seasons won promotion from League One, the Challenge Cup and i think they will be in the Play-Off's. 

His 'association' with Consilium is possibly as simple as they represent him as a player (he's still registered as a player on Airdrie's books).
 

In this country we have a massive issue about how the game is played.  I remember going to Barcelona with my son to an international tournament with some lower level Spanish Academy teams.  Technically they were far superior, but our boys got to the semi by more or less kicking them off the park as they tried to pass it around us.  When they met boys who were a little stronger and technically better there was no competition.  Couple of years later the best technical player in my son's team was dropped to the team and division below as he didn't fit the physical side of playing first division U14 football in Edinburgh (according to the 'coach' - who's Dad used to be a scout for Man U therefore knew everything...).  That boy has been at the Getafe academy for a couple of years and I believe has just been named in the Egypt U19 squad.  Yet his footballing talent was simply ignored at grassroots level in Scotland.

So I don't think the issue is that we shouldn't be playing pass around the back football, it's that our system is set up to produce players who can't do it.  Until grassroots football is sorted we'll continue to produce flawed players.  My wee Egyptian kid now plays right back.  He has infinitely more talent than Grimshaw and he went to the Man U academy - wonder who scouted him...

 
I recall something that Ian Cathro said: that you (the coach) learn more from a 10 year old than he learns from you. If you keep saying “don’t lose the ball” you instil a negative.

I think too many youngsters don’t fit the model (in terms of height and weight) and are discarded - Andy Robertson, Charlie Telfer and even Richard Gough, (who Rangers deemed lacked physical stature). What makes this even worse is that most of these youngsters don’t have a ‘b’ plan, hence they just play lower league or indeed junior football. If you contrast this with the Dutch system, football is only one career path, which you might pursue in conjunction with higher education, apprenticeship, linguistics etc. In other words you will find your level of football at that particular point in time.

In Scotland, going back to Andy Roxburgh it strikes me that you have a lot of “fly men” involved in coaching, who seem to make lucrative careers out of football coaching. That said, I’m probably biased, since 2019, due to the bunch of chancers feasting on the underbelly of our great club.

I went to an Andy Roxburgh coaching week in Largs when I was a kid.  He brought in guys like Andy Ritchie (on how to strike the ball) and Roy Aitken (on captaining the team).  To be fair it was about making money, but the coaching was excellent.  That was probably 1984 - I don't think the actual coaching has moved on much.