Reading my way through the various threads, very often there is points made about CC and his man management/team selection/touch line behaviour(or lack of it) - so I wish to have my say.

There is no doubt that CC came into management after lots of pondering, the sign of a mature person.

He took over a team considered successful and has gently eased them into another playing pattern, in my opinion, better on the eye and more successful.

It is natural when games are lost disappointed fans turn on the players and manager without much consideration being given to the ability of the opposition.

However, I would contend that we now have a better run team, playing better football, managed by a better manager, making better use of his subs and.....not only does he talk sense but he is more articulate than any other manager in the SPL and most of the professional presenters.

All in all, I am proud to be a CC supporter at this early stage of his management career.

prefer 38-30-32 maself.

CC is doing a good job IMHO, for me he stands out, he looks controlled and he also looks the part, now i know that don't necessarily make a manager but i feel he is a good ambassador of the club, and as we've seen the team can produce the goods.

Keep the good work up Charlie.

Some good points EWS and I would say that you have a good handle on the game, your comments are more than welcome and I do agree with you on some of what you have to say, Charlie to be fair is on a learning curve and I have expressed my own reservations previously but again to be fair we have to give him some time.

I appreciate your own comments have been attacked solely on the locals 'circling wagons'  basis but like you I regard ICT on a bigger stage in that we have to look to the future, to say that Charlie's main asset is that he won't jump ship midstream is in the extreme, shortsightedness. ..........

We have come a very long way in a very short time and to justify a managers position by declaring that he will not be tempted by a move elsewhere clearly indicates that we have no ambition and prefer the status quo, and again to be fair I would say that this reflects the game played so far this season.

BTW Chibber is a footballing fool, his take on the game is easily illustrated by sending him a postage stamp and asking him to write down all he knows about fitba on the back of it.

Only Jestin Harry Lad xxxx

Some good points EWS and I would say that you have a good handle on the game, your comments are more than welcome and I do agree with you on some of what you have to say, Charlie to be fair is on a learning curve and I have expressed my own reservations previously but again to be fair we have to give him some time.

I appreciate your own comments have been attacked solely on the locals 'circling wagons'  basis but like you I regard ICT on a bigger stage in that we have to look to the future, to say that Charlie's main asset is that he won't jump ship midstream is in the extreme, shortsightedness. ..........

We have come a very long way in a very short time and to justify a managers position by declaring that he will not be tempted by a move elsewhere clearly indicates that we have no ambition and prefer the status quo, and again to be fair I would say that this reflects the game played so far this season.

BTW Chibber is a footballing fool, his take on the game is easily illustrated by sending him a postage stamp and asking him to write down all he knows about fitba on the back of it.

Only Jestin Harry Lad xxxx

cheeky ***** :006:

How can you accuse the board of lacking ambition when we already doing better than last season??  :017:

what  a shitey home support!!!!!!!

How's it Christie who takes all the credit or all the flak? Surely Parkie is pulling the strings behind the scenes. He seems to be the guy who shouts all the instructions to the players from where I'm sitting, and why not? He's the experienced one, remember Christie is still a novice.  :024:

I remember we transformed from a free flowing attacking team a la Brazil under Pele into a negative long ball team a la Wimbledon under Robbo and Parkie before. Yeah it was boring, but the soft goals we used to concede dried up, and we won the league (although to be fair we were 4 points clear when Pele left and he probably would have won it for us a season earlier if he hadn't left).

There's a tradeoff in football between organizational rigidity and free flowing attacking creativity. You can't have your pie and eat it.  We've got one of the best defensive records in the league, and as all football experts understand... "YOU BUILD YOUR SIDE FROM THE BACK"

I'd hate if we became a mickey mouse Keeganesque team that wins 3-0 one week and loses 5-0 the next week. We shouldn't try to improve our attacking game AT THE EXPENSE of our solid defensive game. The Rangers and Celtic games are a classic case study, in the first we were Wimbledon and we won 1-0, in the second we tried to be Brazil and we lost 3-0.

The long ball game works! I remember once hearing that over 60% of goals in football were scored from long balls. Can't remember who did the study, and don't know if it's still true, but worth thinking about. Also, if your defenders tend to hoof it when in doubt, you concede far fewer goals because you lose the ball in what Mourinho calls dangerous "formations of transition" far less often.

The one area where I think Christie and Parkie have lagged in is team selection. The continual selection of Rankin and Blackie despite poor performances week in week out, and the failure to reward Richie Hart and Zander Sutherland for multiple match winning substitute appearances is frustrating. You should take FORM into account when selecting your team. Competition for places keeps players on their toes, and shows fringe players that you don't just pick your 'favourites'.

So in summary, keep the system, shake up the starting 11!  :025:

Charles Reep I think.

Mind you your own study is less than statistically valid  :015: :015: :015: :015:

A sample size of only two games, one against the worst Rangers side in decades, the other against a team who, it appears, haven't lost for decades, don't give up the day job yet  :004:

'Case Study' general refers to individual examples, so it's not invalid.

Feck me, where do I start  :017: :017: :017: :017: :017:

The lack of smilies etc suggests you are actually serious.....