Gallowgate Toon

Cathro's been working on the attacking play this week, apparently

For home games, I agree that the football must be quicker. Southampton was better for passing with a bit more speed and incision and people would be OK with consistent performances of that ilk (assuming we improve speeding up play in the final third). I think this is a viable strategy for some away games, though, and an attacking midfield 3 of Thauvin, de Jong and Perez would be suited to it with Mitrovic ahead of them.

I don't think he set up on Monday to be defensive, tbf. He set us up quite positively, in terms of shape, and I reckon he wanted us to keep the ball, get the game as wide as possible and work openings patiently. I think some players just didn't turn up (it's quite a new set up for them, tbf, we've only played in that sort of style against Southampton) and he got 1 key position wrong. It's still really early days with how he wants us to play and it looks like they've worked on a few different shapes and tactics, so they've likely not mastered anything and there will be teething problems. Player movement going forward is a big issue but I've heard that's Cathro's domain and I'm sure it'll improve the more it gets worked on. I'm guessing he wants us to generally end up like this: http://www.zonalmarking.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/modern-centre-half.gif If that's the plan, he really should play Ayoze in one of those AM spots, as well as sorting out the obvious Colback/Anita problem.

Hi wasn't really playing as a wide right player on Monday, tbh. He was sort of an inside right with Janmaat pushed up really high and wide.

Anita with one of Sissoko/Wijnaldum would be absolutely fine and infinitely better balanced than Anita-Colback. Anita's not the long term answer, we need to buy a proper CM in January, but he'll have to do for now.

Aye, loads of space in front of our full back, then we pass directly to feet rather than ahead of him Yes, that sort of unconfident passing is a problem for our side. But Colback is the last player who can be accused of that. He is the one who most often tries to play it into someone's stride, rather than at their feet. The player has his faults, but that's not one of them. Him putting the ball a couple of yards in front of a fullback's foot is counteracted by how slowly he plays the pass. As well as always picking the easy option.

Would rather see if i could contact aids tbh. Would be quite difficult, I'd imagine.

I could see the logic in trying to protect him for a few games but this just has to happen. Crying out for someone that can actually take a risk and open up a team from deeper positions, would create more space for other attackers too.

I think he thought the application was right in those first 4 games because he's said he was disappointed with us on the ball at Man U, for example, didn't sound like he thought we played well on the whole. Although, I can't agree with the Swansea one, as we were poor.

Think we'll put in a similar performance to the Southampton game. Narrow 2-1 win.

It's not the formation itself that is making us drop deep, IMO, it's the personnel he's using. 4-3-3 is probably better suited to us, but a 4-2-3-1 should become a 4-3-3 of sorts anyway when we're moving forward with the ball. I don't mind the splitting the CBs thing, let's players get wider and stretch teams but it requires a strong, creative CM that's comfortable taking riskier positions and a smart #10 to link through the middle.

So it makes him better than Keegan also does it going by your comparison? Does it not mean McClaren's better than Pardew? You could sy who has the highest league position in England if you want to put it that way and say Pardew is but I'm not I am just saying they are both equally as s***. But of course you obviously think McC;aren is better than Keegan then. I look at the who picture when I'm comparing. The initial comparison is between McClaren and Pardew, when comparing the two directly, the fact that one has won things makes him better because they're somewhat level in other areas. That's still taking into account the bigger picture. If you asked me to compare Keegan and McClaren then I'd say Keegan because he can do more with an NUFC team than McClaren. So you're using winning more trophies when comparing one manager and then saying that doesn't apply to when you compare with another manager. Yeah right lmao- just do like for like and give an argument as to league positions he has achieved in England which is where Newcastle play. Pardew got to a final of the FA Cup, he finished 5th in the league and is 6th in the league presently but do I say he is a good manager no but he as an overall better league record than McClaren though. You're trying to tell me that one s*** manager is better than another s*** manager and trying to use a League Cup win and a league championship in the Dutch league and yet when I say well if you're using that measure that also applies with someone like Keegan who never won a trophy or a league championship (and not when we were promoted either before you raise that) you try and say no it's not the same - yes it is. I don't think it's hard to grasp, tbh. McClaren's wins as a manager separate himself from Pardew. Keegan's qualities were different so the winning stuff argument doesn't really apply. Anyway, let's just agree to disagree, I just don't think they're in the same bracket, doesn't mean I think either are truly good enough.

So it makes him better than Keegan also does it going by your comparison? Does it not mean McClaren's better than Pardew? You could sy who has the highest league position in England if you want to put it that way and say Pardew is but I'm not I am just saying they are both equally as s***. But of course you obviously think McC;aren is better than Keegan then. I look at the who picture when I'm comparing. The initial comparison is between McClaren and Pardew, when comparing the two directly, the fact that one has won things makes him better because they're somewhat level in other areas. That's still taking into account the bigger picture. If you asked me to compare Keegan and McClaren then I'd say Keegan because he can do more with an NUFC team than McClaren.

So it makes him better than Keegan also does it going by your comparison? Does it not mean McClaren's better than Pardew?

McClaren has actually won a couple of things in the game, that automatically makes him better.

Errr. In modern football. Lots of teams have a midfielder coming deep, with the centre backs splitting and the full backs pushing on. I actually quite like it. The problem is, we don't really have any movement further up the pitch, or players that are confident enough to actually try and work the ball, or pass and move. Too often last night. You would see Mbemba asking players to come short and looking for the pass. Only to have to hoof it long, as there was nothing on. Or we just pass it sideways for ages, then give it to Krul, who invariably boots it straight off the pitch. Played off the park by West Ham and raped by a chubby looking Payet. Embarrassing. EDIT - TL:DR. See AY's post above. This is where we're still a massive work in porgress. Would be a big help if he picked more suitable players for the 3 central roles, obviously. It's like the most key area of his plan too, so he needs to sort it ASAP.

Thought he looked a little sharper and surprisingly agile, last night. Has a big role to play on the weekend. Watford are going to play as West Ham did, let us have the ball and hit us on the break, we'll need someone to move around and make smart choices in the final 3rd. He also has some form of physicality about him so should hopefully link up with the likes of Perez and Wijnaldum well.

The tactic itself is pretty common, isn't it? Split the centre halves, stick a DM between and push the full backs up to try and stretch narrow teams? You're right about our own shape being too stretched, though, massive hole in the middle that Colback and Wijnaldum needed to help fill.

Wijnaldum was playing too high as an AM, for me. Colback was a massive hindrance in us building from the back, as he hid far too often, but Wijnaldum was staying closer to Cisse than really necessary, at times, when we could've done with someone dropping into a pocket to link play more. Possibly because he's not a true 10, tbf, but I can't imagine that's how the role is being coached.

Neither of them deserve to be in the side.

de Jong is a player with presence and a bit of movement and can link play, would genuinely consider putting him up front for the next 2 and playing Perez behind. Perez would be the real threat but would be allowed much more space and can dictate things, rather than getting double-marked all game.

Let's hope so. I'm still reserving judgement but last night was awful, soundly beaten by an average team with one player. Team selection needs a rethink as plenty of others have said. It was so annoying seeing Mbemba constantly calling for someone to pass to along the floor whilst we've got players like Perez and Aarons on the bench. And when we did actually manage to find some decent penetrating passes through the middle, we kept on losing it when trying to build up play (usually because of Cisse's first touch).

Reckon it's because he doesn't quite fit the wider system SMC has tried, and the mistake was made of trusting Cisse to do a job up top in Mitrovic's absence. I agree, though, would like to see him in the team for the weekend.

Spot on. It's a bit harsh on Wijnaldum, to a degree, but he was quite passive in his play, probably because neither of the central 2 came up to support the striker so he ended up going backwards a lot. And, amazingly, we still managed to get broken on on a consistent basis. I just hope SMC's not as stubborn as Pardew and can see what needs to change.

That's called disinterest. That was one of the two points I was making. I took that a bit literally, when you posted