Morton V ICT Match Night Thread.

[RiG]

My mistake.

However, It was Christie that dropped him in the first place, and I stand by my original point, when a team like Hibs come calling with 100k, neither the club, nor Rankin himself, were ever going to say no.

Especially when we had made it clear he wasn't in our plans and had pretty much burned our bridges with the player anyway :thumb04: But no, we certainly weren't in a position to turn down ?100k from Hibs.

RIG for some reason I must've blanked out this years 2nd division champions.

Some daft country bumpkin team called Ross County went up and Airdrie followed after Gretnas demise :018:

When did Charlie Christie 'drop' John Rankin. John played throughout his first season with us, was benched for the last two games to allow Paatelianen a start. Nothing more sinister than that. John also started in three of the four games Charlie was in charge at the start of 07-08 season. So how anyone can suggest he was out of favour I dont know.

He might not have been out of favour under CC but under CB he certainly was.

Edited September 25, 2008 by RiG

[PullMyFinger]

My mistake.

However, It was Christie that dropped him in the first place, and I stand by my original point, when a team like Hibs come calling with 100k, neither the club, nor Rankin himself, were ever going to say no.

Especially when we had made it clear he wasn't in our plans and had pretty much burned our bridges with the player anyway :thumb04: But no, we certainly weren't in a position to turn down ?100k from Hibs.

When did our home performances start to deteriorate? Could we afford to accept ?100K for what was our best player? League position and cup runs generate income, how much more would we have had with Rankin in the team?

RIG for some reason I must've blanked out this years 2nd division champions.

Some daft country bumpkin team called Ross County went up and Airdrie followed after Gretnas demise :018:

No, I still don't get it, who?

When did Charlie Christie 'drop' John Rankin. John played throughout his first season with us, was benched for the last two games to allow Paatelianen a start. Nothing more sinister than that. John also started in three of the four games Charlie was in charge at the start of 07-08 season. So how anyone can suggest he was out of favour I dont know.

He might not have been out of favour under CC but under CB he certainly was.

Again, when did our home performances start to deteriorate?

[AJS]

Russeldinho had an off night

"Russeldinho" always has an off day or night...worst midfielder we have IMO.

[RiG]

When did our home performances start to deteriorate? Could we afford to accept ?100K for what was our best player? League position and cup runs generate income, how much more would we have had with Rankin in the team?

I'm not sure why you're asking me this because I haven't made any kind of assumption between form and Rankin going in this thread have I? In truth our home form was up and down all last season. We fluctuated wildly in Inverness. I do think we would have done better with Rankin in the team and I have said that previously.

[Guest StripTheWillow]

When did our home performances start to deteriorate? Could we afford to accept ?100K for what was our best player? League position and cup runs generate income, how much more would we have had with Rankin in the team?

I'm not sure why you're asking me this because I haven't made any kind of assumption between form and Rankin going in this thread have I? In truth our home form was up and down all last season. We fluctuated wildly in Inverness. I do think we would have done better with Rankin in the team and I have said that previously.

I'd say there's a direct link between form and Rankin leaving, 5thStand wasn't suggesting you were.

[RiG]

Certainly we were doing well while he was on that excellent run of form but as Alex points out he was also playing at the start of the season and we were playing poorly. I do think that we miss his set piece delivery and the fact he was at least willing to have a pop from long range.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

The term "lost the dressing room" is used in football (soccer) to describe the situation where a manager of a club is seemingly very near to being sacked. The team will invariably be struggling on the pitch, the manager will be under a lot of pressure and the signs may be that he has lost the faith and respect of his players.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_the_dressing_room"

At the present time the future of Brew is highly dependent on results and is also dependent on the players busting a gut for him. He has to lose faith in his favourites and keep the same team and tactics.

Sounds like last night was as much a reprieve and a relief as a victory.

Given the run of games coming up he is - to coin another well known phrase - on a very sticky wicket.

Brew's future is always, like any manager, dependant on results and the players busting a gut for him (and for themselves for that matter). I understand your comment about losing faith in his favourites, but he has been criticised by members of this forum for doing that and relying too much on the youngsters. It just goes to demonstrate that opinion can vary among the supporters who all want the same thing - success - so there will almost always be a proportion of the fanbase that disagree with something Brew does!

I don't see why last night was a repreive (I'm not aware that Brew's job was partcularly under threat prior to the game) although there is no doubt that the result was a relief for all staff and supporters alike.

The forthcoming games are certainly a challenge, but I don't see why he's on a sticky wicket, anymore than he normally is! A run of bad results will always increase pressure, but lets not add to the burden by piling the pressure on before it's even got to the point of being due.

The bottom line is that we're through to the QF's of the CIS Cup and we're mid-table in the league. I'm sure we'd all have taken that before the season started. If (and some will think when) we lose the next 4/5 games and end up 11th/12th and out of the CIS Cup, then start cranking the pressure up - I just can't see what possible benefit can be gained from putting the players and manager under undue pressure before the predicament merits it.

What a pity this debate hasnt got a thread of its own. It is actually "nice" to have posters supporting Brewster and comong up with rational defences. Sumtimes ya just cant win - but that also comes wiv the territory.

Brew is under threat and he does not have the support of some of the players. There have been these "whispers" for some time now and he only survived last season becos of financial issues and the lily livered management.

This forum isnt putting the pressure on - in many ways it is self inflicted. The basic reasons that I am voicing MY concerns are becos I fear that we are heading to the position that you have alluded to - we should be thinking about changing it now before we get to that situation. Brew was one of my fave players - a joy to watch - but as a manager he has displayed appalingly naieve tactical awareness, has personalised disputes and shows an unrepenting arrogantness.

If we do pull ourselves out of this it will be becos of the players not Brewster.

He has not been aided by the ineptness of his management but he is being kept in blind faith and the fear that a manager with some sense will blow the shennanigans at TCS to feckin pieces.

Oh how I wish Neil Warnock had given it a go !!

[Bush]

IHE

Whilst I respect your opinion and acknowledge some of the points you make, you must surely see a bit of inconsistency in your arguement. How can you on one hand essentially say that "we're heading for the mire and it's Brewsters fault" and then turn round and say, and I quote, "If we do pull ourselves out of this it will be becos of the players not Brewster"?

The management and players have got us where we are (wherever you think that is), and both will determine where we end up!

You can't arbitarily blame Brewster solely as the cause of all poor performances and then credit the players for all good performances.

As I've intimated previously, I'm not adverse to criticism of Brewster or any individual player when it is merited and when those criticising can justify it. What I can't follow is is inconsistent, unjustifiable and unbalanced criticism.

Whilst I do respect what you say, I do think you've shot yourself in the foot a bit here (unless of course you can justify why Brew is solely to blame for things going wrong and has no part when they go well!).

[CaleyP]

IHE

Whilst I respect your opinion and acknowledge some of the points you make, you must surely see a bit of inconsistency in your arguement. How can you on one hand essentially say that "we're heading for the mire and it's Brewsters fault" and then turn round and say, and I quote, "If we do pull ourselves out of this it will be becos of the players not Brewster"?

The management and players have got us where we are (wherever you think that is), and both will determine where we end up!

You can't arbitarily blame Brewster solely as the cause of all poor performances and then credit the players for all good performances.

As I've intimated previously, I'm not adverse to criticism of Brewster or any individual player when it is merited and when those criticising can justify it. What I can't follow is is inconsistent, unjustifiable and unbalanced criticism.

Whilst I do respect what you say, I do think you've shot yourself in the foot a bit here (unless of course you can justify why Brew is solely to blame for things going wrong and has no part when they go well!).

Unfortunately bush this seems to be a frequent occurrance on this forum. I think peoples frustrations get the better of them and end up pointing the finger to quickly without thinking about what they're writting...i'll do it aswel most likely, just human i guess. although i must agree with the point you made, and i quote, "You can't arbitarily blame Brewster solely as the cause of all poor performances and then credit the players for all good performances." a team does not win or lose without one anothers input.

Edited September 26, 2008 by CaleyP

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

I am not wholly attributing the blame on Brewster.

1. There has been undoubted mismanagement and Brewster has undoubtedly not had the spondoolachs to attract a better class of player.

2. The players have been inconsistent and there are a few who are not up to scratch this season.

BUT I am saying that the blame is largely attributed to BREWSTER.

I have highlighted inadequacies in his tactics on several occasions and, on most occassions, my observations have been widely supported by others at the games in question. If anything I was one of the few who tried to rally round him at the start but IMHO he is still making the same errors as he was last season.

The professional players must be frustrated by this and his attitude towards some must also rankle. The "togetherness" at ICT IMHO has been missing since Brewster arrived. Add 2 and 2 together.

And it WILL be the players who turn us round. Brew can either assist or **** that by changing his systems. BUT the players playing for their manager is a big, big bonus. The manager inspiring the players is a big, big bonus. That simply aint happening.

Are some players putting in poor performances becos they are not being played in the position most suited to them ?

A silly example is - if you were a left winger with a poor right foot but delivered a mean ball with yer left - how would you feel about being played deeper on the right. The fault would be down to the manager more than the player.

[CaleyP]

I am not wholly attributing the blame on Brewster.

1. There has been undoubted mismanagement and Brewster has undoubtedly not had the spondoolachs to attract a better class of player.

2. The players have been inconsistent and there are a few who are not up to scratch this season.

BUT I am saying that the blame is largely attributed to BREWSTER.

I have highlighted inadequacies in his tactics on several occasions and, on most occassions, my observations have been widely supported by others at the games in question. If anything I was one of the few who tried to rally round him at the start but IMHO he is still making the same errors as he was last season.

The professional players must be frustrated by this and his attitude towards some must also rankle. The "togetherness" at ICT IMHO has been missing since Brewster arrived. Add 2 and 2 together.

And it WILL be the players who turn us round. Brew can either assist or **** that by changing his systems. BUT the players playing for their manager is a big, big bonus. The manager inspiring the players is a big, big bonus. That simply aint happening.

Are some players putting in poor performances becos they are not being played in the position most suited to them ?

A silly example is - if you were a left winger with a poor right foot but delivered a mean ball with yer left - how would you feel about being played deeper on the right. The fault would be down to the manager more than the player.

one thing that does annoy me about brew is his persistance in changing the system and different players almost every week. one thing that is paramount to any team is stability and consistency.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

I sense that you are beginning to catch ma drift dude.

[CaleyP]

possibly

[dead_ball_specialist]

There isn't THAT much difference between most SPL teams and the first division as cup results over the last couple of seasons have shown. So a victory away from home agaist Morton is surely a good result. Nobody has mentioned that they knocked 4 past Hibs at easter road in the last round which ought to put our result into perspective.