01 Oct 2014 15:12:57
I was thinking after watching a re-run of the St Mirren game and I'd be interested in you guys thoughts on this. I think we are struggling in the last third for something, drive, class, a spark, something. 2/3 shots on goal against St Mirren backs that up. We have to make do with the players we have now and that's it. But I had a thought about a change that could give us a wee shake up might be like buying a new attacking player. Ok tin hats on now and I'm prepared for the fallout lol. I personally think broony is a very underrated player, I wonder if his drive in a more attacking midfield role would give us a much needed boost. (It was browns drive into the box that led to our first goal, he did more for us in an attacking sense than our so called attacking midfielders did, give him more licence) I would also try Mulgrew and iffy as our 2 sitting midfielders (both have bomb scare tendencies but the occasional mistake in midfield as opposed to defence shouldn't be as costly. It would give us a lot of highland power in both boxes at set pieces also. 4-2-3-1. Lustig, Denier, Virgil, izzy. Ambrose, Mulgrew. commons, brown, forest/stokes. Guddetti . just a thought with the limited resources we have? Markiebhoy

1.) 01 Oct 2014
01 Oct 2014 16:43:53
Personally I don't want charlie anywhere near the midfield again i'd rather have efe in there than him tbh I know people rate charlie but imo he's a terrible footballer and shouldn't be played anywhere apart from lb or cb if needed other than that he should be on the bench but I do agree brown can offer something in attack especially if commons doesn't make it

2.) 01 Oct 2014
I don't particularly rate either of them guinnie (Iffy and charley) which might sound strange as I'm touting them for the holding roles. I just think (Henderson aside who the manager doesn't seem to rate) that they are the best of a bad bunch at the moment. It would be great to have Ki, Ledley, or Wanyama to choose from bud, and just mentioning those names is a reality checks as to how far back the playing staffing standards have dropped. Markiebhoy

3.) 01 Oct 2014
01 Oct 2014 19:15:23
Understand your point mate but in the holding role i'd rather have efe, bitton, kayal or johansen ahead of charlie

4.) 01 Oct 2014
Hi gunnie/markie

I think a small point is being missed and that is that brown does have a license to attack and has done so quite effectively

the other point about a system change wit 4 at the back, 2 sitting midfielders, two out wide an ACM and a forward is interesting but I would think that domestically speaking, it is still rather turgid.

markiebhoy, all you have really done is replace brown with commons and a further back brown with fee or charlie and replaced johansen with fee or charlie with commons and stokes delivering width.

so, can we agree that commons is not a wide player? Stokes too should not be a wide player even though he floats out there all of the time for some odd reason (sammy on the other hand was more "fitted" in that wide role coming inside etc…

so we are still left with a muddle of sorts

brown as an ACM, absolutely BUT IN MY VIEW to big a miss in what I like to call "the trenches"; the trenches is not about mere positioning and tackling (albeit it helps) hut you need to be mobile and have a good level of awareness. I don't think chuck mulgrew can do what brown does in the middle albeit he would be doing less than brown given that brown gets up the park now and again and threatens.

Gunnie, I am not a huge charlie fan but he cannot be that bad. I mean if you were that bad how do you pull the wool over the eyes of celtic manager(s) and national team managers. I am not a huge fan, but I think you are being a little fatalistic on charlie's all round game…

back to our squad and getting the best out of an ordinary bunch.

On merit alone, I would make space for gordon (GK), Lustic (RB), Izzy (LB), VVD and Denayer (CBs) and then I would go with Brown and Biton (or Johansen) in the middle with stokes up ahead playing in behind the lone striker Guidetti, leaving room for forrest and mcgregor in the wide areas, or you go with a 3-5-2 with Gordon and then VVD, Denayer and Lustig as a back 3, johnasen or mulgrew holding mid, brown and commons ahead of johansen, forrest out right, izzy out left with Guidetti and Stokes up top with the emphasis on stokes to float out now and again in support of Izzy….

5.) 01 Oct 2014
I think I am in the minority who thinks we miss Mulgrew. He is, in my opinion, our second best central midfielder after Brown, our best LB and our 2nd best CH. I really don't understand the dislike by many on this site but perhaps it's me. I do however take solace in the fact that every manager he has played under sees him as a first pick and I would hope these guys no better than us. I thought he was outstanding in centre midfield away to Germany and gave a display that the likes of Kayal, Biton or Johansen could only dream of. Also, I have to say that I feel we need to give McGregor a rest as he has faded away recently and not offering much.

6.) 01 Oct 2014
01 Oct 2014 22:25:24
Marty watch him closely especially legia warsaw away and you will really see why he's crap that's just opinion but I know i'm not the only 1 who thinks so but each 2 their own

7.) 02 Oct 2014
Mulgrews biggest strength is also his biggest weakness. An ability to play many positions well, but not nail down and excel in one position.
I think he gets a hard time from sections of the support. Every modern squad needs a good utility player. Personally, I like Mulgrew.
O'Shea had the exact same problem at Man Utd. But was an excellent tea/squad player. Even played in goals. Craig Gordon has nothing to worry about there though. ;)

8.) 02 Oct 2014
Interesting points paradise. Your right that was the main point (in giving brown a further forward thinking role) I know as shown against St Mirren that he is given a bit of licence to go forward, but not enough in my opinion. I actually thought stokes playing forward left had a his best game in ages against hearts and linked up great with izzy that's why I mentioned him there but I would prefer a fit Forrest any time in any of the wide positions. I agree commons is better through the middle but think he could play in any forward position (he's a clever football player, he has to be to be that slow lol) I disagree with your giving Bitton or Yohanson a game. I have maybe been spoilt by the abundance of riches we had in recent years in the center midfield department but I just don't rate them. it's the heart of the team and when has either ever taken a game by the scruff of the neck and controlled it? For me Bitton is a fantastic passer of the ball. that's it! He will not tackle, doesn't have much of an engine and doesn't have anything going forward as he rarely scores or assists. And Yohanson is the opposite lol, great engine and will run and tackle all day, but he gives the ball and free kicks away far to often. if you could mix the best bits of both players you would have Scott Brown . Sorry mate iv lost track a bit lol. yeh I was thinking freeing Brown up more in the final third and not being so reliant on him as a sitting mid would give us a boost up front. another thing that's interesting and ties in with your good point about commons being better through the middle is that NL whatever anyone thinks of him undoubtedly got the best out of commons last season and he is a shadow of the guy who scored 30 odd from midfield last year, he played a 4-4-1-1. with commons getting a free role behind the striker, maybe we should go back to that and it could be possibly better with gudetti up front? Forest and whoever proves best of the new wide guys and mcgregor wide other side, brown and someone (Henderson getting a chance again maybe, god knows what that boy has done wrong) center mid? Just thoughts. Markiebhoy