Ross McCrorie

[W-S-M Seagull]

4 minutes ago, Robbored said:

No doubt Manning will have on the bench and introduce him to gradually i the pace of the Championship.

I suppose the good thing is that as his absence wasn't injury related then it's not going to reoccur in a matchday scenario due to it being an infection. 

So it's all about building his fitness up without concerns that it could reoccur. Although I suppose with being out for quite a while there is the potential to pick up other unrelated injuries if rushed. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see him on the bench at the weekend. If only to get him back into the match day routine.

 

[redkev]

Would love to know more about his injury ( not being critical of any thing or anybody ) just never heard of a bacterial injury before , only bacterial thing I have ever heard of is flu and that bloody Covid shite 

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, redkev said:

Would love to know more about his injury ( not being critical of any thing or anybody ) just never heard of a bacterial injury before , only bacterial thing I have ever heard of is flu and that bloody Covid shite 

Flu and COVID are both caused by a virus rather than a bacterial organism.

Have a read of this which is about Santi Cazorla's struggles. This is probably the highest profile bacterial 'injury' of recent times. McRorie may not be absolutely the same, but it's an example of the type of thing that can sadly happen.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2018/sep/07/santi-cazorla-villarreal-injury-arsenal-interview-sid-lowe

[CityReds]

2 minutes ago, redkev said:

Would love to know more about his injury ( not being critical of any thing or anybody ) just never heard of a bacterial injury before , only bacterial thing I have ever heard of is flu and that bloody Covid shite 

Both of which are viral not bacterial.

Just takes a small cut and some bacteria from anything to get into a wound or anywhere and you’re ill for some time. Antibiotics can help but it’s a long road to recovery as we’ve witnessed 

[redkev]

3 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Flu and COVID are both caused by a virus rather than a bacterial organism.

Have a read of this which is about Santi Cazorla's struggles. This is probably the highest profile bacterial 'injury' of recent times. McRorie may not be absolutely the same, but it's an example of the type of thing that can sadly happen.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2018/sep/07/santi-cazorla-villarreal-injury-arsenal-interview-sid-lowe

Thanks that’s quite a read and I imagine quite worrying for any person to be hit with something like this , I now understand why it took so long to sort , I would imagine even with all the training he has done he will have to be managed pretty carefully for a while once he actually gets game time . Would imagine there will be a fair few games before he does a 90 mins , either subbed on or off if he starts . 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Numero Uno said:

Just out of interest did you notice when we played Millwall that his wide player, Andi, was anywhere but wide and every time Tanner received the ball he had no forward option to pass it to (and you would be a complete and utter lunatic to try and carry the ball into three or four players of traffic) whereas on the opposite side Anis was hugging the touchline and that gave Pring at least TWO options (other than reset) every time he received the ball? If you must look for "fault" in that scenario then either Andi took it upon himself to avoid the wide area for reasons known to himself or, far more likely imo, Manning had a valid tactical reason for asking him to play narrow on the day.

Don't get me wrong, Tanner does seem "limited" in terms of going forward with the ball but criticism should be balanced. I must admit if McCrorie doesn't give us something extra given what we spent then that would be disappointing.

The Millwall game was interesting, because in the previous games it was Mehmeti inverting to give Pring space to get forward, and a more conservative Tanner / Sykes combo on the other side.

Yet for Millwall, Manning reversed the lopsided approach.  Why?  Was he worried about Brooke Norton-Cuffy advancing the ball, but could be more attacking against Murray Wallace?  I don’t know….but it didn’t work.

So, gameplan is relevant as you suggest before we can truly critique.

[ExiledAjax]

11 minutes ago, redkev said:

Thanks that’s quite a read and I imagine quite worrying for any person to be hit with something like this , I now understand why it took so long to sort , I would imagine even with all the training he has done he will have to be managed pretty carefully for a while once he actually gets game time . Would imagine there will be a fair few games before he does a 90 mins , either subbed on or off if he starts . 

Yes. I get the feeling that McRorie hasn't had quite as bad a time as Cazorla had, but it's clearly been quite rough.

He will need to be managed back to full "match fitness".

But it's great to have him back in the squad.

[Numero Uno]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

The Millwall game was interesting, because in the previous games it was Mehmeti inverting to give Pring space to get forward, and a more conservative Tanner / Sykes combo on the other side.

Yet for Millwall, Manning reversed the lopsided approach.  Why?  Was he worried about Brooke Norton-Cuffy advancing the ball, but could be more attacking against Murray Wallace?  I don’t know….but it didn’t work.

So, gameplan is relevant as you suggest before we can truly critique.

It was obviously tactical to me and as we know sometimes tactics, like Weimann playing inside that particular game, work wonderfully in your head but don't translate onto the the pitch for whatever reason. That's not an issue, happens all the time, but it was unfortunate that Tanner was the fall guy in the eyes of many watching. There were numerous occasions when he was getting pelters and I was thinking "what the hell was he meant to do in that situation?" - three opposition bodies in front of him, Weimann marked up, no other forward outlet - of course he went backwards to someone spare. If he had the ability and blistering pace of Cafu to go past three or four players that might be a different thing but he doesn't.

The things we lack in our squad are the things you need to unlock organisation - top level movement, high level passing ability or the ability to go past players and disorganise the opposition that way. When we can afford to add those qualities to the squad in we will cope a lot better with teams "doing a Millwall".......when people bang on about Manchester City passing the ball ad infinitum they forget that it's also the likes of Foden, Doku and Grealish leaving players sat on their arse that are a major ingredient of what they do to create the clear chances.

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

It was obviously tactical to me and as we know sometimes tactics, like Weimann playing inside that particular game, work wonderfully in your head but don't translate onto the the pitch for whatever reason.

yep, and I think in the games / mins he’s started / come on as sub on the left, he’s inverted effectively.

That's not an issue, happens all the time, but it was unfortunate that Tanner was the fall guy in the eyes of many watching. There were numerous occasions when he was getting pelters and I was thinking "what the hell was he meant to do in that situation?" - three opposition bodies in front of him, Weimann marked up, no other forward outlet - of course he went backwards to someone spare. If he had the ability and blistering pace of Cafu to go past three or four players that might be a different thing but he doesn't.

yep, agree.  And if the tactic was for Weimann to invert to allow Tanner to “bomb”, you’d question whether that is using Tanner in the best way.

The things we lack in our squad are the things you need to unlock organisation - top level movement, high level passing ability or the ability to go past players and disorganise the opposition that way. When we can afford to add those qualities to the squad in we will cope a lot better with teams "doing a Millwall".......when people bang on about Manchester City passing the ball ad infinitum they forget that it's also the likes of Foden, Doku and Grealish leaving players sat on their arse that are a major ingredient of what they do to create the clear chances.

[Son of Fred]

53 minutes ago, redkev said:

Would love to know more about his injury ( not being critical of any thing or anybody ) just never heard of a bacterial injury before , only bacterial thing I have ever heard of is flu and that bloody Covid shite 

His problem was a bone infection (bacterial in nature) in his hip/pelvis area, resulting in the small area of affected bone being removed.

Lot's of muscle for the surgeon to navigate so very invasive- hence the timescale.

 

[Tim Monaghan]

13 hours ago, Selred said:

Very excited to have Ross back to fitness. Looks a top player, and a massive upgrade on “pass backward” Tanner. 

Some supporters seem to have a misconception about the concept of football. They think that the ball has to move forward for us to progress through phases. I'm not targeting you specifically, but this is the post that has pushed me too far. A sideways or even a backwards pass can be as effective as a forward pass. I don't understand why some fans don't get it. It's all about moving and shifting the opposition to create gaps and space. When you make a sideways pass, you're pulling the opposition team across the pitch, and you're dominating the play. You don't have to move forward all the time to be effective and open up areas to attack or exploit. Under Manning, we control the ball better and we don't give away as much unnecessary possession. If that means passing the ball backwards and then building again, then that's fine. I'd prefer 10 sideways or backwards passes and keeping possession of the ball, creating space for an attacking move, than a hopeful or aimless punt up the field where we lose control of the ball. That should be obvious, shouldn't it?

[CityReds]

6 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

Some supporters seem to have a misconception about the concept of football. They think that the ball has to move forward for us to progress through phases. I'm not targeting you specifically, but this is the post that has pushed me too far. A sideways or even a backwards pass can be as effective as a forward pass. I don't understand why some fans don't get it. It's all about moving and shifting the opposition to create gaps and space. When you make a sideways pass, you're pulling the opposition team across the pitch, and you're dominating the play. You don't have to move forward all the time to be effective and open up areas to attack or exploit. Under Manning, we control the ball better and we don't give away as much unnecessary possession. If that means passing the ball backwards and then building again, then that's fine. I'd prefer 10 sideways or backwards passes and keeping possession of the ball, creating space for an attacking move, than a hopeful or aimless punt up the field where we lose control of the ball. That should be obvious, shouldn't it?

I watched a very interesting video on De Zerbi where Brighton players are encouraged to literally stand still with their foot on the ball until they are pressed and space is made available. What we don’t have at the moment is the speed of passing and advancing once that space has opened up, which of course can only come with time and practise

[Tim Monaghan]

7 minutes ago, CityReds said:

I watched a very interesting video on De Zerbi where Brighton players are encouraged to literally stand still with their foot on the ball until they are pressed and space is made available. What we don’t have at the moment is the speed of passing and advancing once that space has opened up, which of course can only come with time and practise

Yeah, that’s also an interesting concept. Manning has obviously inherited a team, and I don’t think he has the players he wants to play the sort of football he wants.

[Gimme Shelton]

18 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

Some supporters seem to have a misconception about the concept of football. They think that the ball has to move forward for us to progress through phases. I'm not targeting you specifically, but this is the post that has pushed me too far. A sideways or even a backwards pass can be as effective as a forward pass. I don't understand why some fans don't get it. It's all about moving and shifting the opposition to create gaps and space. When you make a sideways pass, you're pulling the opposition team across the pitch, and you're dominating the play. You don't have to move forward all the time to be effective and open up areas to attack or exploit. Under Manning, we control the ball better and we don't give away as much unnecessary possession. If that means passing the ball backwards and then building again, then that's fine. I'd prefer 10 sideways or backwards passes and keeping possession of the ball, creating space for an attacking move, than a hopeful or aimless punt up the field where we lose control of the ball. That should be obvious, shouldn't it?

Should be obvious but we're not dealing with tactical geniuses on here,what some people are watching,or think they're watching,during a game,is hilarious at times. (Yes,you two idiots behind me in the upper Lansdown,I mean you)

[Selred]

48 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

Some supporters seem to have a misconception about the concept of football. They think that the ball has to move forward for us to progress through phases. I'm not targeting you specifically, but this is the post that has pushed me too far. A sideways or even a backwards pass can be as effective as a forward pass. I don't understand why some fans don't get it. It's all about moving and shifting the opposition to create gaps and space. When you make a sideways pass, you're pulling the opposition team across the pitch, and you're dominating the play. You don't have to move forward all the time to be effective and open up areas to attack or exploit. Under Manning, we control the ball better and we don't give away as much unnecessary possession. If that means passing the ball backwards and then building again, then that's fine. I'd prefer 10 sideways or backwards passes and keeping possession of the ball, creating space for an attacking move, than a hopeful or aimless punt up the field where we lose control of the ball. That should be obvious, shouldn't it?

I agree about keeping possession. But Tanner does miss progressive passes if he looked up and played with more speed. He slows the game down each time by stopping the ball and eventually having to go back as the opposition has time to regroup, unlike Pring who does burst into spaces and looks to play more attacking balls. I know part of this is balance (one up, one stays back), and is tactical, but also you need to have both in your locker.

As mentioned, there's a reason Nige looked at getting a new RB in. 

[bcfc01]

11 minutes ago, Selred said:

I agree about keeping possession. But Tanner does miss progressive passes if he looked up and played with more speed. He slows the game down each time by stopping the ball and eventually having to go back as the opposition has time to regroup, unlike Pring who does burst into spaces and looks to play more attacking balls. I know part of this is balance (one up, one stays back), and is tactical, but also you need to have both in your locker.

As mentioned, there's a reason Nige looked at getting a new RB in. 

Because we had no backup.

[Selred]

3 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

Because we had no backup.

So our most expensive signing was a RB? It was a priority IMO. 

But anyway I dont want to fully hijack the McCrorie thread.

[Robbored]

2 hours ago, redkev said:

Would love to know more about his injury ( not being critical of any thing or anybody ) just never heard of a bacterial injury before , only bacterial thing I have ever heard of is flu and that bloody Covid shite 

Neither of which are bacterial - both are viruses.

[Mr Popodopolous]

49 minutes ago, Gimme Shelton said:

(Yes,you two idiots behind me in the upper Lansdown,I mean you)

That's no way to speak about the chairman and DoF! 

Edited January 10 by Mr Popodopolous

[chalkeyred]

58 minutes ago, CityReds said:

I watched a very interesting video on De Zerbi where Brighton players are encouraged to literally stand still with their foot on the ball until they are pressed and space is made available. What we don’t have at the moment is the speed of passing and advancing once that space has opened up, which of course can only come with time and practise

The best I've seen at standing still to make space while others moved, is Messi - Modric a close second.

Both, then had short bursts that seemed to create something every time.

Not bad role models..... 

[RollsRoyce]

53 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

Yeah, that’s also an interesting concept. Manning has obviously inherited a team, and I don’t think he has the players he wants to play the sort of football he wants.

Then he is the wrong coach for what we need. The overarching principles of how we play are not determined by Manning, or any coach . Thereis a club philosophy that runs from youth teams to first team. So Tinnion made an error in appointing Manning, wrong man for the job if what you say is true. 

[Norn Iron]

1 hour ago, Gimme Shelton said:

Yes,you two idiots behind me in the upper Lansdown,I mean you)

Not me then as I didn't sit in the Upper Lansdown when I flew over!

[Numero Uno]

11 minutes ago, RollsRoyce said:

Then he is the wrong coach for what we need. The overarching principles of how we play are not determined by Manning, or any coach . Thereis a club philosophy that runs from youth teams to first team. So Tinnion made an error in appointing Manning, wrong man for the job if what you say is true. 

So based on the last four years the club philosophy is to be solely counter attacking and an absolute shambles when faced with defensive organisation? On that basis I would prefer a new philosophy which is what the previous manager was trying to do slowly and Manning is looking to speed up. If it’s a straight choice between the DoF’s sound bites and Manning I’ll go with the latter.

[Davefevs]

30 minutes ago, Selred said:

I agree about keeping possession. But Tanner does miss progressive passes if he looked up and played with more speed. He slows the game down each time by stopping the ball and eventually having to go back as the opposition has time to regroup, unlike Pring who does burst into spaces and looks to play more attacking balls. I know part of this is balance (one up, one stays back), and is tactical, but also you need to have both in your locker.

As mentioned, there's a reason Nige looked at getting a new RB in. 

I think you make valid points.  We can’t be one dimensional and only be able to attack down one side of the pitch.  It’s natural that if your opponent closes down our left wing, that we need to try a different route.

Whilst Tanner is generally more risk averse in his approach (and I no problems with that), he must also recognise when he might have to be the one to try to open things up.  For me that’s taking responsibility, being brave, solving problems on the pitch.

If doubt (hope) the environment and tactical plan is that rigid, so it comes down to George and his teammates to recognise when it’s “their turn” to take on the responsibility for the creative bit.

You can’t just say, let’s go from right to left, pass back and sideways to get it to Pring and Mehmeti and keep hitting a brick walk defence. 

[Sir Geoff]

4 hours ago, Numero Uno said:

Just out of interest did you notice when we played Millwall that his wide player, Andi, was anywhere but wide and every time Tanner received the ball he had no forward option to pass it to (and you would be a complete and utter lunatic to try and carry the ball into three or four players of traffic) whereas on the opposite side Anis was hugging the touchline and that gave Pring at least TWO options (other than reset) every time he received the ball? If you must look for "fault" in that scenario then either Andi took it upon himself to avoid the wide area for reasons known to himself or, far more likely imo, Manning had a valid tactical reason for asking him to play narrow on the day.

Don't get me wrong, Tanner does seem "limited" in terms of going forward with the ball but criticism should be balanced. I must admit if McCrorie doesn't give us something extra given what we spent then that would be disappointing.

Just because Weimann wasn't out hugging the touchline, doesn't mean there was no forward pass available . Several times in the first half there was a good early pass on to Weimann and Tanner failed to initiate it, leaving Weimann to throw his arms up in frustration, as Tanner went backwards yet again.

[Davefevs]

17 minutes ago, RollsRoyce said:

Then he is the wrong coach for what we need. The overarching principles of how we play are not determined by Manning, or any coach . Thereis a club philosophy that runs from youth teams to first team. So Tinnion made an error in appointing Manning, wrong man for the job if what you say is true. 

This is true, but I’ll also add that @Numero Uno adds the vital bit….soundbites versus reality.

My view being formed is that Manning is continuing from what Nige was building / changing, and that is a team that controls possession more and isn’t just counterattacking.  I think Nige was trying to create the right balance.  He wasn’t there, but the direction of travel was.

Whether we see Manning take this shift all the way to Russell Martin ball I don’t know.  I hope not.  Why?  Because I think if he is the football obsessive he tells us he is, he’ll recognise that he’ll need top players (at this level) to make “possession” football (you know what I mean) a success.  It’s why Swansea finished mid-table (15th / 10th) under Martin, and why he’s now looking at top 2 with better players at Southampton.  And we aren’t likely to be able to build b retain a top squad of players.  So he needs to find a balanced solution.  I hope he’s recognised that a decent proportion of our chances comes from “Swift” attacks, wherever the move starts from.

On Sunday, our goal came from a good press and winning an aerial challenge just inside our half.  Bells early chance came from a long pass from Vyner.  Pring’s from memory came from a deeper bass through the lines that enabled Knight to cross against a retreating defence.

[Numero Uno]

3 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Just because Weimann wasn't out hugging the touchline, doesn't mean there was no forward pass available . Several times in the first half there was a good early pass on to Weimann and Tanner failed to initiate it, leaving Weimann to throw his arms up in frustration, as Tanner went backwards yet again.

Yes, there were occasions when that was the case but there were far more when he didn’t have a pass on and when he did let the crowd get to him he played it forward into Conway with Hutchinson or Cooper right up his arse. Like I say a bit of balance never goes amiss. The role Weimann was asked to play did not help Tanner whatever your views on his ability.

[RollsRoyce]

7 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

So based on the last four years the club philosophy is to be solely counter attacking and an absolute shambles when faced with defensive organisation? On that basis I would prefer a new philosophy which is what the previous manager was trying to do slowly and Manning is looking to speed up. If it’s a straight choice between the DoF’s sound bites and Manning I’ll go with the latter.

You have missed the point completely, which is unlike you. Manning is the wrong appointment if you have to change the squad to"play his way". If true, he was suited to Swansea. If you believe we should be completely changing the club from top to bottom, then you are going to be waiting a very long time for success. Manning should not define the football club. Look at the successful sides and see the difference. We would be doing the opposite. Again. However, the point was about needing to change everything to meet Mannings's needs. I would counter that, by saying Manning is not a one-trick pony, and has shown a pragmatic approach to using the available players. That is encouraging. He quickly reverted the defensive unit back to a more solid 4 after early forays made us weaker for example. Manning, like Pearson, needs a Scott replacement, and some magic in the side (as do 12/14 other non PP clubs) to try and break down the familiar Championship defensive blocks. 

Not sure we were a shambles when we had a fit squad. We are no longer much of a counter-attacking threat either. The last 4 years were a pragmatic solution to available resources and not the end game. If Manning is to survive and thrive , he will continue to be pragmatic, and compromise to the circumstance. But if we are talking about changing the club philosophy from top to bottom, then go to sleep for a few years as the club flip flop their approach once more. 

 

[Crackers Corner]

4 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I suppose the good thing is that as his absence wasn't injury related then it's not going to reoccur in a matchday scenario due to it being an infection.

Unless we play the gas then the whole team will need antibiotics.

[Numero Uno]

9 minutes ago, RollsRoyce said:

You have missed the point completely, which is unlike you. Manning is the wrong appointment if you have to change the squad to"play his way". If true, he was suited to Swansea. If you believe we should be completely changing the club from top to bottom, then you are going to be waiting a very long time for success. Manning should not define the football club. Look at the successful sides and see the difference. We would be doing the opposite. Again. However, the point was about needing to change everything to meet Mannings's needs. I would counter that, by saying Manning is not a one-trick pony, and has shown a pragmatic approach to using the available players. That is encouraging. He quickly reverted the defensive unit back to a more solid 4 after early forays made us weaker for example. Manning, like Pearson, needs a Scott replacement, and some magic in the side (as do 12/14 other non PP clubs) to try and break down the familiar Championship defensive blocks. 

Not sure we were a shambles when we had a fit squad. We are no longer much of a counter-attacking threat either. The last 4 years were a pragmatic solution to available resources and not the end game. If Manning is to survive and thrive , he will continue to be pragmatic, and compromise to the circumstance. But if we are talking about changing the club philosophy from top to bottom, then go to sleep for a few years as the club flip flop their approach once more. 

 

The only person talking about changing the style significantly is Tinnion that I can see who requires some mythical "front foot" game otherwise you're fired.............I haven't heard Manning say anything about massively changing styles. I do not think the current pragmatic approach is either sustainable or likely to keep bums on seats in the long term. It derived from an experienced manager asked to carry out a reset whilst maintaining Championship status. For many, watching us play on the counter at home, when it doesn't work, is absolutely soul destroying. Pragmatism has been done, it's delivered the short term benefit it needed to and now Manning HAS to change the style to a degree unless you want to be sat here in four years time still mid-table, watching us with players of decent but not outstanding Championship ability competing against teams that come at us and still being bloody awful against the Preston's and Millwall's of this world. Something has to change to deliver what the hierarchy want (and sacked Pearson for not providing) doesn't it?

In terms of pragmatism Manning has done alright after a shaky start where I do believe he tried to change a few things too quickly in some respects. I thought we played a very decent counter attacking game on Sunday and definitely did at Watford for example. I think people are paying too much attention to the sound bites from the top. It's hot air coming from them as far as I'm concerned. Given we were adopting a pragmatic approach to fit FFFP circumstances do you really believe this "pragmatism" was being coached from U9's to U21's? I don't. We haven't had a "club Style" for literally YEARS now. So what is there for Manning to "rip up"?

What is the "club philosophy" that Liam would be dismantling by the way? Who defines it? The Director of Football presumably? Has the ingrained philosophy been explained to fans by him - I mean properly, not some meaningless "front foot" sound bite that could mean 20 different things. Because, at the moment, bar the undoubted team spirit and application we have, I see literally nothing else that Liam could rip up and ruin..........