Stubbs can go now

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

So what should Stubbs do ?

Go out sign players with no first team experience or players from a show peace game to spot talent .

Aye that sounds like a recipe to run away with the league.

Another IOBS classic.

[Bud the Baker]

1 minute ago, Sweeper07 said:

 

NOT sure what you mean by the dynamics of the match - 

I hope the confusion is just linguistic - but I'll explain what I meant...………….. 

Onfield events change over the course of a game due to factors like goals, near misses, substitutions & controversial incidents - at 2-0 up teams tend to think they have the 3 points in the bag and sit in a bit hoping to get additional goals on the break rather than chasing them. Drawing the second half 0-0 while losing the match 2-0 is not necessarily a sign of improvement.

 

 

[Sweeper07]

Just now, Bud the Baker said:

I hope the confusion is just linguistic - but I'll explain what I meant...………….. 

1. Onfield events change over the course of a game due to factors like goals, near misses, substitutions & controversial incidents -

2. at 2-0 up teams tend to think they have the 3 points in the bag and sit in a bit hoping to get additional goals on the break rather than chasing them.

3. Drawing the second half 0-0 while losing the match 2-0 is not necessarily a sign of improvement.

 

 

1. OK so my previous comment answers that - Livi had at least as many attempts on goal in the 2nd half - so they did not sit back and their players were still trying very hard to get their names on the score sheet - our players never got near it.

2. Lots of games change from a team leading 2  v  0 to the other team coming back and winning - so its not true in many cases that teams with a two goal lead are sure they have the 3 points in the bag or that they all decide to sit on that from half time. 

3. Every game goes through changing factors - not every team who goes 2 up sits on it... as I alluded to. Especially when they saw that we had nothing to make it a game of two halves - so they kept at it, just as they had in the first half... it was us who were a bit more stable and less keen to lose more.

I am not sure what fan thinks that drawing in the second half is not better OR an improvement than losing 2 to nil in the first? I think all fans would opt for nil nil in both halves rather than what we had - i.e.  2 v 0 against us.

[Bud the Baker]

21 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said:

1. OK so my previous comment answers that - Livi had at least as many attempts on goal in the 2nd half - so they did not sit back and their players were still trying very hard to get their names on the score sheet - our players never got near it.

2. Lots of games change from a team leading 2  v  0 to the other team coming back and winning - so its not true in many cases that teams with a two goal lead are sure they have the 3 points in the bag or that they all decide to sit on that from half time. 

3. Every game goes through changing factors - not every team who goes 2 up sits on it... as I alluded to. Especially when they saw that we had nothing to make it a game of two halves - so they kept at it, just as they had in the first half... it was us who were a bit more stable and less keen to lose more. 

I am not sure what fan thinks that drawing in the second half is not better OR an improvement than losing 2 to nil in the first? I think all fans would opt for nil nil in both halves rather than what we had - i.e.  2 v 0 against us.

None of which proves your initial statement "When we were 2 down the swap Bairdy for KP led to no further goals" - which you are obviously suggesting was an improvement. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Bud the Baker

[Sweeper07]

Just now, helpmaboab said:

Why did they no just attack mair in the second half, game wis lost as it stood. Wan goal wid of made Livi nervous. We were at hame fur goads sake. They two goals wi conceded were the result of nae commanding centre half taking charge. That is an ongoing problem.

Why did they no just attack mair in the second half - because we don't have players/tactical nous in our management team/ team not working well enough together/ some of them not motivated for whatever reason   etc. Take your pick. But I think we were a big bit clueless (naïve). Look back during the game - I predicted the Baird swap for KP at least 20 minutes before it happened - why would the Stubbs management team not see it even before I did? That is very worrying indeed... Let's be honest Livi were up for it so much more than we were - they chased us down and out muscled us ALL over the park - Other than bringing on  Baird for better defensive stability, they did bring on Smith with 25 minutes to go and Cook with 8 minutes left - both of these switches were our most attacking options on the bench..

 

You are correct in part at least  - the two goals we lost were because our CB's got out muscled - KP and Alphie both weaker than the guy who they were marking. However, last week it was 4 goals where the full backs were at fault....

 

[Sweeper07]

4 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

None of which proves your initial statement "When we were 2 down the swap Bairdy for KP led to no further goals".

Don't let facts get in the way - what actually happened? Players wise that was the change, goals wise there was no more from when he started to organise the defence. Even our management team eventually realised that this swap was essential - I will give them pluses for this - albeit a bit later than it should have been IF it should have been in the 1st place...

You don't contend with all my other points then?

[Bud the Baker]

11 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said:

Don't let facts get in the way - what actually happened? Players wise that was the change, goals wise there was no more from when he started to organise the defence. Even our management team eventually realised that this swap was essential - I will give them pluses for this - albeit a bit later than it should have been IF it should have been in the 1st place...

You don't contend with all my other points then?

I don't see why I need to as they don't contradict my point that dynamics change games.

You're the one who's made a statement and then contradicted it two posts later.  

Edited August 28, 2018 by Bud the Baker

[Lord Pityme]

Havent seen/read this McGinn interview that is being quoted (if any one can post/copy link would be much obliged). But given the fact i have on occasion misinterpreted someones meaning (yes i know as incredible as it may sound) when McGinn refers to lack of game time among several of the new recruits... is he not doing his role as a captain and offering a reason, to protect his team mates, rather than feeding the Stubbzo Pitchfork & Torch mob..?

 

[Buddie Marvelous]

2 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Havent seen/read this McGinn interview that is being quoted (if any one can post/copy link would be much obliged). But given the fact i have on occasion misinterpreted someones meaning (yes i know as incredible as it may sound) when McGinn refers to lack of game time among several of the new recruits... is he not doing his role as a captain and offering a reason, to protect his team mates, rather than feeding the Stubbzo Pitchfork & Torch mob..?

 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/16600626.st-mirren-0-livingston-2-stephen-mcginn-worried-too-many-new-saints-players-have-played-too-little-football-elsewhere/

[Sweeper07]

9 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Havent seen/read this McGinn interview that is being quoted (if any one can post/copy link would be much obliged). But given the fact i have on occasion misinterpreted someones meaning (yes i know as incredible as it may sound) when McGinn refers to lack of game time among several of the new recruits... is he not doing his role as a captain and offering a reason, to protect his team mates, rather than feeding the Stubbzo Pitchfork & Torch mob..?

 

I like what you say - trouble is different people take it in one or the other of these ways...

[Sweeper07]

12 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

I don't see why I need to as they don't contradict my point that dynamics change games.

You're the one who's made a statement and then contradicted it two posts later.  

Not sure if your emoji  is a joke or what you mean - I don't see I have contradicted what I said - have you read into it wrongly?  

[Lord Pityme]

7 minutes ago, Buddie Marvelous said:

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/16600626.st-mirren-0-livingston-2-stephen-mcginn-worried-too-many-new-saints-players-have-played-too-little-football-elsewhere/

Cheers bud!

as i suggested McGinn is not attacking the manager, but supporting his misfiring team mates. People really need to take stock at what they are saying, and the impact on the players who, by the sound of it from their captain are feeling it, and will improve.

that said i'd pay a fee to nick big Halkett.

[Sweeper07]

1 minute ago, Lord Pityme said:

Cheers bud!

as i suggested McGinn is not attacking the manager, but supporting his misfiring team mates. People really need to take stock at what they are saying, and the impact on the players who, by the sound of it from their captain are feeling it, and will improve.

that said i'd pay a fee to nick big Halkett.

We could have had him - but it was put off waiting for a new manager - I agree He is the kind of solid leader that is badly needed. I think His height and drive and Bairdy's speed and ability to read the game would be a dream CB pairing for us..

[Cornwall_Saint]

3 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:

Cheers bud!

as i suggested McGinn is not attacking the manager, but supporting his misfiring team mates. People really need to take stock at what they are saying, and the impact on the players who, by the sound of it from their captain are feeling it, and will improve.

that said i'd pay a fee to nick big Halkett.

You could be right on McGinn. With all the negativity about I think some are looking for anything to keep the boat sinking.

Based on what he seen on Saturday, we would have to offer a huge jump in wages to make him leave Livi for us 

[Wendy Saintss]

1 hour ago, Sweeper07 said:

Jack Baird was first choice more often than MacK and Davis combined or very nearly last season.. I believe that he was dropped in favour of the other two to encourage them to sign back on for this season. BUT overall BAIRD's contribution was more significant than either...

Problem is Stubbs has attempted to rebuild the defence with inexperienced, not good enough players who are all costing us more goals than BAIRD.... e.g. Coulson at fault in 3 against Aberdeen - now I could have seen him having been dropped for Saturday, but hey ho, he is one of Stubbs new boys...

Jack Baird was played more often than Mac or Davis cos those 2 were injured more than half the season. When they were both fully fit, Baird was dropped.

Stubbs inherited a complete rebuild job in defence!

Yes, you are correct. The guys he's signed haven't been good enough. I agree.

So its a two fold problem IMO. JR left him with, after the loss of Morgan, Davis and the unfit Mack and Eck, with a mid table Championship squad. And Stubbs has failed to sign anyone decent! 

[Bud the Baker]

18 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said:

Not sure if your emoji  is a joke or what you mean - I don't see I have contradicted what I said - have you read into it wrongly?  

No - "When we were 2 down the swap Bairdy for KP led to no further goals" is a non sequiter and you contradict it two posts later when you said "I am not sure what fan thinks that drawing in the second half is not better OR an improvement than losing 2 to nil in the first? ". 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Bud the Baker

[nedflanders123]

2 hours ago, Wendy Saintss said:

He signed 2 players from the v9 academy.

Pre season, we were being told that Stubbs needed to sign 20 million new players. Taking 2 from v9 isn't really a lot!

JR signed guys like Stewart, Kirkpatrick & Tod from the part time lower divisions as squad fillers. Nobody had a meltdown about that!

No, there wasn't a meltdown as we were a very poor first division side. who just escaped relegation on goal difference.  Completely different as a premiership club. Only time will tell if any of AS signings are deemed worthwhile.

[Sweeper07]

4 minutes ago, Wendy Saintss said:

Jack Baird was played more often than Mac or Davis cos those 2 were injured more than half the season. When they were both fully fit, Baird was dropped.

Stubbs inherited a complete rebuild job in defence!

Yes, you are correct. The guys he's signed haven't been good enough. I agree.

So its a two fold problem IMO. JR left him with, after the loss of Morgan, Davis and the unfit Mack and Eck, with a mid table Championship squad. And Stubbs has failed to sign anyone decent! 

We can agree to have different opinions on your first point or not but I think JR wanted all 3 for the Premiership - Stubbs had no chance of keeping Davis, and that was a blow but the other 2 are good enough for the Premiership. Personally I would have Baird ahead of MacK if they were both fit, age, speed, tackling etc but many others would think the opposite. The issue is that Alfie and KP are worse than both of these others. What we needed was someone even better (at least 1)

Stubbs inherited BAIRD, an injured MacK and Paul McGinn - all capable of being decent defenders with enough quality to play in the Premiership. Coulson has great potential but is learning the hard way. Perhaps Alfie is in a similar boat but  KP is not good enough. I think Stubbs believes he inherited a complete team rebuild - over his 3 years contract this would be no problem, but he has tried to do too much too soon, without getting enough positives over the negatives - I hope things turn around - but the window is closing and we need quality, not has-beens or more at the same sort of standard in our current squad.

Losing Morgan was a big loss - but there are loads of guys out there we haven't managed to get to sign for us who could have made up for this - 

[Wendy Saintss]

6 minutes ago, Sweeper07 said:

We can agree to have different opinions on your first point or not but I think JR wanted all 3 for the Premiership - Stubbs had no chance of keeping Davis, and that was a blow but the other 2 are good enough for the Premiership. Personally I would have Baird ahead of MacK if they were both fit, age, speed, tackling etc but many others would think the opposite. The issue is that Alfie and KP are worse than both of these others. What we needed was someone even better (at least 1)

Stubbs inherited BAIRD, an injured MacK and Paul McGinn - all capable of being decent defenders with enough quality to play in the Premiership. Coulson has great potential but is learning the hard way. Perhaps Alfie is in a similar boat but  KP is not good enough. I think Stubbs believes he inherited a complete team rebuild - over his 3 years contract this would be no problem, but he has tried to do too much too soon, without getting enough positives over the negatives - I hope things turn around - but the window is closing and we need quality, not has-beens or more at the same sort of standard in our current squad.

Losing Morgan was a big loss - but there are loads of guys out there we haven't managed to get to sign for us who could have made up for this - 

Stubbs inherited 1 fit defender from last season's squad - and he's wasn't even first choice.

Not sure what your point is. My statement is a fact!

He also got McGinn, but it was more or less a rebuild job in defence.

I agree that the guys he has signed for this haven't been good enough.

And you are totally bonkers if you think that we could have signed ANYONE to make up for the loss of Lewis Morgan. There is no-one we could have signed to come close to him.

 

[Sweeper07]

22 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

No - "When we were 2 down the swap Bairdy for KP led to no further goals" is a non sequiter and you contradict it two posts later when you said "I am not sure what fan thinks that drawing in the second half is not better OR an improvement than losing 2 to nil in the first? ". 

OK First you mean a non sequitur rather than non sequiter : The former actually exists and means that the logic of one statement does not follow in the next or something like that.....?

There is no contradiction in my statements (meaning saying 2 opposing things) - We swapped Bairdy when we were 2 goals down and after that we never conceded any further goals.

My later post was answering your logic that Livi sat back on a 2  v 0 lead and that game dynamics was the reason we lost no further goals. (Aye the players don't actually affect things, just all these other factors)

Then in a later post you said Drawing the second half 0-0 while losing the match 2-0 is not necessarily a sign of improvement. So I answered that with "I am not sure what fan thinks that drawing in the second half is not better OR an improvement than losing 2 to nil in the first? ".  If you mean it was not an improvement in the sense that we were still 2 goals down, I will give you that, but it was better than going further behind. Also not only was the defence much better organised in the 2nd half but the fans would in the main be happier that we conceded none rather than any in that half - so that is an improvement on the 1st half performance on two fronts.

These posts were on separate things – having Baird on the park in fact resulted in us losing no further goals and I am sure most fans were happier that we did not lose more goals in the second half with Baird in the team, than losing 2 in the first half when he was on the bench… I am not saying if he was not brought on we would have lost a further 2 goals - we cannot know that. I am only saying what actually did happen.

Are you on something?? (other than your chair?)

[Sweeper07]

20 minutes ago, Wendy Saintss said:

eStubbs inherited 1 fit defender from last season's squad - and he's wasn't even first choice.

Not sure what your point is. My statement is a fact!

He also got McGinn, but it was more or less a rebuild job in defence.

I agree that the guys he has signed for this haven't been good enough.

And you are totally bonkers if you think that we could have signed ANYONE to make up for the loss of Lewis Morgan. There is no-one we could have signed to come close to him.

 

Your so called fact is based on your opinion - you have no idea what the manager thought.

And the fact is that Baird was in the 1 team in our last game of the season 29th April, and on the 17th - so in our last 4 matches He was first choice twice as were MacK and Davis.

The period prior to this he was on the bench ofr a while - but my belief that JR was trying to get the other two to sign, and since Jack was already signed, is no less plausible that your opinion that Baird was not 1st choice during that period because of his ability compared to theirs. (I suspect many will agree with you - but other factors are part of the mix in picking a team)

Further when Mack returned to full fitness he sat on the bench for weeks with Baird ahead of him in the pecking order. From the 16th December till the 17th February when all 3 were fit, Baird was first choice every week, MacK was on the bench all these weeks except for one that saw Davis drop to the bench (astro turf at QOS)

HE did get McGinn - he is at least as good as the ones he has signed, but not sure if Stubbs thinks so or not? My point is it is the managers job to build or rebuilt a squad that is fit for the season ahead - not sure if you believe Baird is not good enough - but I strongly disagree and opinions are simply that.

Morgan is great - but he is not irreplaceable - otherwise we should just give in now...… yes we could have signed a number of goalscorers that other teams have signed - we just did not compete financially and I believe that we could have... some things are worth more... this was essential to our progress and we have failed so far in that area..

[Bud the Baker]

1 hour ago, Sweeper07 said:

OK First you mean a non sequitur rather than non sequiter : The former actually exists and means that the logic of one statement does not follow in the next or something like that.....?

 

There is no contradiction in my statements (meaning saying 2 opposing things) - We swapped Bairdy when we were 2 goals down and after that we never conceded any further goals.

 

My later post was answering your logic that Livi sat back on a 2  v 0 lead and that game dynamics was the reason we lost no further goals. (Aye the players don't actually affect things, just all these other factors)

Then in a later post you said Drawing the second half 0-0 while losing the match 2-0 is not necessarily a sign of improvement. So I answered that with "I am not sure what fan thinks that drawing in the second half is not better OR an improvement than losing 2 to nil in the first? ".  If you mean it was not an improvement in the sense that we were still 2 goals down, I will give you that, but it was better than going further behind. Also not only was the defence much better organised in the 2nd half but the fans would in the main be happier that we conceded none rather than any in that half - so that is an improvement on the 1st half performance on two fronts.

These posts were on separate things – having Baird on the park in fact resulted in us losing no further goals and I am sure most fans were happier that we did not lose more goals in the second half with Baird in the team, than losing 2 in the first half when he was on the bench… I am not saying if he was not brought on we would have lost a further 2 goals - we cannot know that. I am only saying what actually did happen.

 

Are you on something?? (other than your chair?) 

It's a non sequitur (thanks for the spelling tip - I'm guessing you had to look it up) because the substitution was not necessarily the reason for losing no further goals, there is no way you can prove that as you admit, which makes your later post a contradiction - no amount of wriggling changes that. 

Am I on something - yeah the kettle which places you firmly on the pot! 

PS - I mentioned substitutions in my explanation of match dynamics, it only took you 4/5 posts to catch up and make a bigger arse of yourself!  

Edited August 28, 2018 by Bud the Baker

[Hambud]

What Div tweeted I heard from 3 different sources on Saturday so it wasn't an 'exclusive' (copyright Daily Ranger).

Hahaha and none of them follow him on twitter and saw it on Friday night [emoji23][emoji23]

I think that kind of proves BTB point.

[Hambud]

I heard from a guy who sits near me in the west stand, who heard it on good authority, from a guy who knows someone on P&B that Darren Jackson is getting a cut from the transfers because he's setting up deals with his old agent buddies.
Guaranteed reliable info.

Should report him to Fifa ad I'm pretty sure that goes against all rules. We might then get rid.

I'd imagine it's bullshit though.

[Wendy Saintss]

Your so called fact is based on your opinion - you have no idea what the manager thought.
And the fact is that Baird was in the 1 team in our last game of the season 29th April, and on the 17th - so in our last 4 matches He was first choice twice as were MacK and Davis.
The period prior to this he was on the bench ofr a while - but my belief that JR was trying to get the other two to sign, and since Jack was already signed, is no less plausible that your opinion that Baird was not 1st choice during that period because of his ability compared to theirs. (I suspect many will agree with you - but other factors are part of the mix in picking a team)
Further when Mack returned to full fitness he sat on the bench for weeks with Baird ahead of him in the pecking order. From the 16th December till the 17th February when all 3 were fit, Baird was first choice every week, MacK was on the bench all these weeks except for one that saw Davis drop to the bench (astro turf at QOS)
HE did get McGinn - he is at least as good as the ones he has signed, but not sure if Stubbs thinks so or not? My point is it is the managers job to build or rebuilt a squad that is fit for the season ahead - not sure if you believe Baird is not good enough - but I strongly disagree and opinions are simply that.
Morgan is great - but he is not irreplaceable - otherwise we should just give in now...… yes we could have signed a number of goalscorers that other teams have signed - we just did not compete financially and I believe that we could have... some things are worth more... this was essential to our progress and we have failed so far in that area..

The fact that the manager dropped Baird when Mack and Davis were both fit showed me what the manager thought!

And Baird being dropped wasn’t my opinion. It was an irrefutable fact..... cos that’s what actually happened!

And Morgan is irreplaceable and no, that doesn’t mean we should give in either!