Jump to content

Time for Bowie to step up


drmurray

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, CBFC said:

Hmmm. Let me clarify for you.

I never said we should try Rory up front. I said that was/is his preferred position. 

He is not a winger, and he will be the first to admit that. Jones is a winger. Different type of player. Stewart is very skilful and did well with us. However, his agent is selling him around as many clubs as he can to get his cut.

Rory is being asked to do a role which I happen to think he does very well. As I said before, it is not only what he does with the ball, but what he does when we don't have the ball where I see his contribution to the team.

And in order to repeat myself, I respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it. His work rate on Saturday at Livi was far superior to Liam Miller. We constantly were shouting at Miller to track back. He didn't, leaving Hammy exposed.

Forums are about opinions. we will not all agree.

Nah mate you’ve lost me.

So he’s no use upfront, no use as a winger but because of his work rate he should play anyway? Interesting you say what he does off the ball... I watched the highlights and they nearly scored because he didn’t track back. Or does that instance not count? Maybe I’ll come sit next to you just so I can see things from your perspective. 
 

Agree to disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thebigguy68 said:

I do mean well. I’m not sure where my attitude and understanding is misplaced though. The GT money should not have been part of a budget or else our club IS being seriously mismanaged. This would have been speculation in the extreme. So, it’s an upside. It may well contribute to other costs and improve our margins of operation but it was not required to support our forecast spending, surely. As I’ve continually said, I’d advocate reinvestment of a relatively small portion of such an upside. I believe that with a better scouting network this is a scaleable and sustainable PART of a business model.

In terms of TiK, I understand many on here are vested in it. Good on you all. I have nothing but positive things to think of folks investing their cash in support of killie. Quite the reverse. What I’ve seen occurring here on many occasions however, is those that contribute, expressing dissapointment or worse with those that don’t and drawing reference ( as you do) with other supporters groups. This is unhealthy imo. It’s not the fans job to prop up one of Scotland’s major clubs.

 I’m guessing that in the case of motherwell and hearts, the embryo of their supporters investment was at point when they on their knees and very existence was questioned. It’s unsurprising to me at least that such causes a greater reaction from supporters and that once in folks tend to stay in. But I acknowledge Ive not looked at this and some of you folks can better explain the differences.

If killie were in dire need of money, I’d be the first in line. You’ll have to trust me on that. But to be a top club we need more, much more than fan donations. There are different approaches beyond the transfer approach advocated. Some are unpopular. Many I’ve raised before. Ground sharing with other football and rugby clubs.  Increasing young fan based through links with a national level gaming leagues in the morning before matches. Securing private funds to pay for players in the same way investors invest in property of buy paintings. Investors will invest in anything if the prospect of a return are good. I think in the future even the biggest clubs will De- risk on transfers by joining with private investors. Share risks and rewards. There are loads more ways the businesses consider to reduce costs and grow revenues. Many have challenges. The point is simply; keep doing what your doing but challenge the board to move the needle more significantly. I’m on your side, we just place a different priority on TiK.

 

So it's not the fans job to prop up one of Scotland's major clubs ? Except that they do even if they don't contribute to TiK through their season-ticket money, patg, buying merchandise from the club shop, Lotto etc. Are we actually a major Scottish club ?  Celtic, Sevco, Aberdeen, Hibs, and Hearts all have supports and income that we can't match and probably never will. I'm not against investment from other sources, but a few English clubs have found that some investors are difficult to remove once they lose interest in the club they have invested in. TiK helps protect against rogue investors by increasing the shareholding in our club that Kilmarnock supporters have. I can't see any valid reason why someone who could afford to join TiK wouldn't join it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Wrangodog said:

I can't see any valid reason why someone who could afford to join TiK wouldn't join it. 

So why don’t they? That would be the question I would ask them if I was vested in TiK. Maybe it should be praise for joining rather than castigating for not. Maybe a change in tone on here from some would be a good start to encouraging wider adoption. Some folks maybe don’t like being pressured to join a union even though their politics align with the collective. Anyway, I’m not trying to undermine the good work done. I just hate group think and an environment where there is no room for individual thought. A pet hate of mine. There should be room for all views.

By the way. Propping up implies artificial, sometimes temporary, support. Naturally we all contribute to the running of the club through our gate monies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Thebigguy68 said:

So why don’t they? That would be the question I would ask them if I was vested in TiK. Maybe it should be praise for joining rather than castigating for not. Maybe a change in tone on here from some would be a good start to encouraging wider adoption. Some folks maybe don’t like being pressured to join a union even though their politics align with the collective. Anyway, I’m not trying to undermine the good work done. I just hate group think and an environment where there is no room for individual thought. A pet hate of mine. There should be room for all views.

By the way. Propping up implies artificial, sometimes temporary, support. Naturally we all contribute to the running of the club through our gate monies.

You are absolutely clutching at straws here trying to defend you position but the more you write the more it looks like you are stuck in a time warp from decades ago. If you think fans don't already make major contributions to most football clubs then you are seriously wrong, almost every club in Germany is majority owned by fans, plenty of other countries too, try Googling it, you will be amazed. All this nonsense about uber fans and cliques etc is only ever brought up by fans with an axe to grind or some other obscure reason they don't want to get involved. If you don't want to get involved in "group think" or anything like that then maybe being a football fan is not for you because for a large part that's really what it is - being better together and part of something bigger than yourself, a collective if you will. There is no pressure whatsoever on anyone to join, that's a complete red herring, its quite the opposite in fact, they are far too nice about it and should maybe point out that the thinking behind it is that we get our fingers out now and avoid getting into the situations that other clubs have found themselves in. If you think that waiting until the club is about to close before you get "first in the queue" to help then I can see why we have a problem. Ever heard that prevention is better than cure? If someone's "tone" is enough to stop you even looking into what's going on and why its happening then maybe that's down to you and not down to anyone else, equally if you can't be a part of something and maintain your own individuality. If you don't like the idea then fair enough (although the proof is out there that it works), no one is forcing you to take part and no one is trying to make anyone else feel guilty about it - just don't expect them not to talk about it when others are discussing the problems the club face. The trust have an agenda - help the club in any way possible - and they have to keep talking it up as that is how these things work and how other clubs are doing so well with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Big Tam said:

You are absolutely clutching at straws here trying to defend you position but the more you write the more it looks like you are stuck in a time warp from decades ago. If you think fans don't already make major contributions to most football clubs then you are seriously wrong, almost every club in Germany is majority owned by fans, plenty of other countries too, try Googling it, you will be amazed. All this nonsense about uber fans and cliques etc is only ever brought up by fans with an axe to grind or some other obscure reason they don't want to get involved. If you don't want to get involved in "group think" or anything like that then maybe being a football fan is not for you because for a large part that's really what it is - being better together and part of something bigger than yourself, a collective if you will. There is no pressure whatsoever on anyone to join, that's a complete red herring, its quite the opposite in fact, they are far too nice about it and should maybe point out that the thinking behind it is that we get our fingers out now and avoid getting into the situations that other clubs have found themselves in. If you think that waiting until the club is about to close before you get "first in the queue" to help then I can see why we have a problem. Ever heard that prevention is better than cure? If someone's "tone" is enough to stop you even looking into what's going on and why its happening then maybe that's down to you and not down to anyone else, equally if you can't be a part of something and maintain your own individuality. If you don't like the idea then fair enough (although the proof is out there that it works), no one is forcing you to take part and no one is trying to make anyone else feel guilty about it - just don't expect them not to talk about it when others are discussing the problems the club face. The trust have an agenda - help the club in any way possible - and they have to keep talking it up as that is how these things work and how other clubs are doing so well with it.

This post. 

Smashed it. Well put sir. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Big Tam said:

You are absolutely clutching at straws here trying to defend you position but the more you write the more it looks like you are stuck in a time warp from decades ago. If you think fans don't already make major contributions to most football clubs then you are seriously wrong, almost every club in Germany is majority owned by fans, plenty of other countries too, try Googling it, you will be amazed. All this nonsense about uber fans and cliques etc is only ever brought up by fans with an axe to grind or some other obscure reason they don't want to get involved. If you don't want to get involved in "group think" or anything like that then maybe being a football fan is not for you because for a large part that's really what it is - being better together and part of something bigger than yourself, a collective if you will. There is no pressure whatsoever on anyone to join, that's a complete red herring, its quite the opposite in fact, they are far too nice about it and should maybe point out that the thinking behind it is that we get our fingers out now and avoid getting into the situations that other clubs have found themselves in. If you think that waiting until the club is about to close before you get "first in the queue" to help then I can see why we have a problem. Ever heard that prevention is better than cure? If someone's "tone" is enough to stop you even looking into what's going on and why its happening then maybe that's down to you and not down to anyone else, equally if you can't be a part of something and maintain your own individuality. If you don't like the idea then fair enough (although the proof is out there that it works), no one is forcing you to take part and no one is trying to make anyone else feel guilty about it - just don't expect them not to talk about it when others are discussing the problems the club face. The trust have an agenda - help the club in any way possible - and they have to keep talking it up as that is how these things work and how other clubs are doing so well with it.

I don’t think you have read my posts. I’m good with TiK. It’s just not the answer. I know Lots of clubs do it. And it’s a good thing. But it won’t sustain us as a top end club alone. You are using language about survival and avoiding getting into trouble. I’m talking about flourishing and getting into Europe and winning things. We have different agendas. I have no axe to grind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate just stop. You're ideas are to ground share(who with? The last pitch was made for rugby and we got how many games on it) and get investors in some grand idea similar to art galleries. That's what your big ideas are to become this big European club. 

Again I know you mean well, but your ideas there are ludicrous. And please don't make this a thing about the Trust and TiK and cliques and anything else, it's literally that I just find your responses silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SaucyJackPirate said:

Mate just stop. You're ideas are to ground share(who with? The last pitch was made for rugby and we got how many games on it) and get investors in some grand idea similar to art galleries. That's what your big ideas are to become this big European club. 

Again I know you mean well, but your ideas there are ludicrous. And please don't make this a thing about the Trust and TiK and cliques and anything else, it's literally that I just find your responses silly.

Time will tell how silly my ideas are. Get they not all conventional but that’s the point. The same tired rhetoric will get us nowhere. Anyway, adult chat over it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SaucyJackPirate said:

Come up with a business plan then and present it to the board. Or you could just sit online arguing against free money for football clubs and contribute nothing at all. That's a much bigger achievement.

Free money Is good. Ive acknowledge that several times. Why do you not get that from my posts???!!!! TiK is a good initiative. However, there has to be more substantive ways to grow club revenue and move us forward. I acknowledge your offer to help with the business plan. This is the boards job though and  I’m a bit busy right now. Maybe another time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thebigguy68 said:

So why don’t they? That would be the question I would ask them if I was vested in TiK. Maybe it should be praise for joining rather than castigating for not. Maybe a change in tone on here from some would be a good start to encouraging wider adoption. Some folks maybe don’t like being pressured to join a union even though their politics align with the collective. Anyway, I’m not trying to undermine the good work done. I just hate group think and an environment where there is no room for individual thought. A pet hate of mine. There should be room for all views.

By the way. Propping up implies artificial, sometimes temporary, support. Naturally we all contribute to the running of the club through our gate monies.

I don't think it is castigation, more puzzlement. Why have Hearts, Motherwell, and St. Mirren supporters bought into the concept but our supporters haven't in greater numbers ? There is room for individuals to give their thoughts but in the end all decisions are group think as you put it. Relationships don't work if there isn't some form of compromise, or you end up with one person making all the decisions that suit them. Does that sound like the recent past at Killie ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty neutral in all this but after reading the posts I find myself agreeing with @Thebigguy68 to an extent (which for many previous posts I haven’t) 

I am not for one minute advocating a boom and bust approach.
 
If the last 2 years have shown me anything it is that the “natural order” of Scottish football is ripe to be challenged. The very fact the sheep and the two from Edinburgh haven’t managed this in the past countless years can only be testament to mismanagement and a lack of leadership. 
 
I can’t help but believe our club has all the makings of a Leicester, we are not fashionable, we don’t have the biggest crowds, the biggest budget or the best ground but we do have the opportunity to create a togetherness that is unsurpassed by any other club in the country. 
 
What we need is belief and more importantly ambition. We need to grasp opportunity when it comes along, invest wisely and maintain a team on the park that plays a game that makes our fans proud, believe big and keep coming...maybe even bring their friends too.
 
I agree with all the folk who remind us of times before SSC when it was bleak, it really was and I think we should do everything we can to avoid going back there. 
 
I don’t know if AA is the man, or if it’s the next manager...or the next one after that but what I do know is that the time under Clarke has shown me what is possible, if Stewart hadn’t left, If McLean hadn’t been McLean, if we’d managed to work out how to beat Livi, Aberdeen and Hamilton....we should dream big and we should strive for better. I’m absolutely not for being negative and will support our team to the hilt regardless of where we sit in the league but I do agree that we had (and have) an opportunity to be something more than plucky underdogs. Not suggesting we remortgage the ground on it but that we do all we can, while remaining financially sound, to take the opportunity. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wrangodog said:

I'm not against investment from other sources, but a few English clubs have found that some investors are difficult to remove once they lose interest in the club they have invested in. TiK helps protect against rogue investors by increasing the shareholding in our club that Kilmarnock supporters have.

At the initial TiK On Board in Person meeting a few months ago, Phyllis touched upon an approached to Killie by a London based company looking to invest.

She said, after initial talks the board felt it wasn't in the clubs best interests to persue it any further.

Edited by C4mmy31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lorielus said:

I'm not sure he's ever played up front for us since his earliest sub appearances under JJ.

I'll try to to be either sarcastic or condescending here (even though the last time I went through a game point by point for you and you just completely ignored it as it didn't suit your view) in the hope that you're not actually just a troll, I'll try to explain Rory's role in the two positions he tends to play for us (regardless of whether that's his natural position or otherwise).

First, try to get yourself into a place where rather than trying to justify your dislike of a player, try to start from a position of "talented managers keep picking this guy, I should probably try to understand why".

Rory plays either as a false attacking midfielder (to stress that's not my term) or wide midfielder (when he's not having to fill in as a central or sitting midfielder).

So his most common role is the false attacking midfielder, as he tends to drift into this a bit even when playing wide (whether that's a flaw in his game or instructed I don't know, it worked with Taylor and O'Donnell as they tended to provide the width anyway), so I'm going to outline part of that role by going through a particular movement that's heavily used in that role in the hopes you'll be able to spot it the next time you see him play.  So the role of a false attacking mid (which El Mak also plays, this his role seems to be different to Rory's when we're not in posession) has the same starting position as an attacking mid or support forward, but the role involves them coming deeper (the movement itself of moving from that position to deep is key to the role) to attempt to drag either a sitting midfielder or defender out of the line to create space behind or beside.

This movement is one you'll see them both do a lot, where they run toward the person with the ball (often Dicker in our team), receive it to feet, and either link it wide (usually to a fullback that's moving forward in our case), or straight back to the player they received from.  Then they have two choices, they can attempt to spin in behind the player they've pulled forward or move to the side.  Usually you'll see the spin in begin if he's linked the ball to a wide player, and usually the move to the side if playing it back to a deeper midfielder.

The reason he moves to the side when playing it back to a deeper midfielder is it leaves the player he's pulled forward with two choices, (1) to follow him, leaving a huge passing lane for the deeper midfielder to find a forward or drive into themselves, or (2) drop back to their starting position leaving an overload on whichever side Rory has moved to (since there should be a fullback, winger, and Mckenzie all on that side now).

The reason he spins in behind if giving it wide is in the hope of ending up between the lines of defense and midfield (if he's pulled a sitting mid forward) or in the gap where the defender was (if it was a defender he pulled forward).  He's ended up in this position a lot of times this season, but we've a horrible tendency to try a direct chipped through ball in that scenario (Dicker in particular for some reason seems to be obsessed with attempting it) or when they use that direct passing lane that's been opened up to find Brophy, he tends to try a snapshot rather than play it through (he was very guilty of that a couple of times early in the season where there was huge space to pass it back into Rory's feet inside the box, including a particularly glaring one against Nomads in the second half).

So that's an idea of Rory's role, obviously it's not as simple or strict as that as no role is, but that's one of the major and repeated movements you'll see from him (and El Mak).  So what is he good at and what is he bad at?

First the good, it's probably between him and Power for the best first touch in the team - I don't know if you've ever tried to control a ball when you're running directly toward it and it's been fired toward you, but it's difficult (an example of someone bad at it would be Ndjoli and an example of someone who was excellent at it would be Heffernan).  He's also got decent if unspectacular vision, as I showed you when I went through his role in the Nomad's game point by point (feel free to review) to demonstrate that he was at the centre of many of our chances created, but his primary talent is in reading the play and linking it, i.e. in that movement I went through above - when to play it wide, when to return it, when to spin in behind, when to move to the side, and the choices in there.  For example, if playing it wide - do you give it to Burke or O'Donnell?  If there's a single defender there, strangely enough it's usually better to give it to O'Donnell rather than Burke, as the fullback will stay on Burker, leaving O'Donnell clear to drive or to cross.  He tends to make these decisionswell, probably because he's one of the smarter guys in the team (and I suspect that inspires the trust that managers keep putting in him).  His set piece delivery is excellent - usually creates a few half-chances a game from corners and freekicks for us, pretty much on a par with Burke in that regard.

The bad - he's not very strong on the ball due to his size, he rarely wins shoulder-to-shoulder with people, which is why you don't see him drive into contact the way the likes of Burke does.  He's also not especially fast - he's not slow, but doesn't have the sprint speed to knock it passed someone the way JJ or Millar can.  He also has a tendency to play too safe (for my liking at least, it may be instructed to be fair), which I always think is akin to some form of PTSD for the Locke/Johnston years and doesn't trust his feet enough - he's quite capabale of a stepover and quick step to get himself space to shoot or cross, and doesn't do it nearly enough, prefering to not risk losing the ball, which for me is the primary reason why he doesn't create as much directly as he could (a criticism I agree with you on).  Similarly, he's good enough to drive across the lanes where he doesn't end up shoulder to shoulder to draw fouls or drag people out of position, which again he doesn't seem to want to risk doing (something that he did do as a youth but seems to have been knocked out of him).

Anyway, in the fervant hope that this goes a tiny way to correcting your myopic view of how football teams work, that there's more to attacking than goals and assists, and McKenzie's role in that, those are a few details on the role he's supposed to, and oftentimes capably, performs in the team.

Excellent analysis. You are obviously a student of the game, or played the game.

Sometimes, and I am not getting at Guff here, it takes a bit of explaining to do for others to understand. Today football is very technical and it does sometimes take a wee bit of just watching off the ball what players do.

Again, excellent analysis. Wish I had just said all that instead of getting into a bun fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i saw the title of the thread, read the first two posts and jumped to the end.  To suggest Bowie needs to "step up" takes some level of ignorance.

Given what we suffered under previous regimes, to where we are just now, it would appear the fair weathered supporters amongst us dont like the wind in their face.  Im guessing they're the type who start wearing long johns to the fitba in October, the type who would write an email complaining that there was no vegan pies when they wanted one, and the type that haven't a clue what they are talking about.

If you feel that strongly id love to be in the audience while you speak to Bowie and tell him this, lets be honest though in reality if he was stood nect to you in the boozer the level of arse licking would be on another level.

Another "look at me im pure raging after the game" post.  Dissapointed we didnt turn up on Saturday, if we were honest we were due a sore one from someone, the warning signs have been there, and sometimes it just happens.  There was a time not to long ago we would have been rejoicing at being 5th in the league.

Dont forget to put your hood up the day btw its raining quite heavily.

 

:hurrah:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Wrangodog said:

I don't think it is castigation, more puzzlement. Why have Hearts, Motherwell, and St. Mirren supporters bought into the concept but our supporters haven't in greater numbers ? There is room for individuals to give their thoughts but in the end all decisions are group think as you put it. Relationships don't work if there isn't some form of compromise, or you end up with one person making all the decisions that suit them. Does that sound like the recent past at Killie ? 

I think the earlier point made about hearts and Motherwell being in really dire straights in the past remains a central one. That rallied the troops and once in, unless money gets very tight, they tend to stay in. Killie may not have been far away a few seasons back, but It never got to the level of angst within these clubs and wider support. If it did you would see a different reaction. As frustrating as this is for you ( and I get it) it’s human nature.

There will be folks that just can’t spare the cash. Some, for whatever reason, that don’t want to be associated with TiK. But I’m guessing most just don’t get round to it. Maybe you’ve tried it. But the opt out rather than opt in approach can help. Not sure how practical but when buying season ticket or maybe when buying tickets for big matches, a condition of such purchase Is joining TiK and giving a minimum fee ( that can be increased at time). If the form contains the similar info required to acquire the season ticket, it’s no extra hassle. There is an opt out box.

Otherwise positive promotion and time. Probably all been said and done by you folks in the past.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Thebigguy68 said:

I think the earlier point made about hearts and Motherwell being in really dire straights in the past remains a central one. That rallied the troops and once in, unless money gets very tight, they tend to stay in. Killie may not have been far away a few seasons back, but It never got to the level of angst within these clubs and wider support. If it did you would see a different reaction. As frustrating as this is for you ( and I get it) it’s human nature.

There will be folks that just can’t spare the cash. Some, for whatever reason, that don’t want to be associated with TiK. But I’m guessing most just don’t get round to it. Maybe you’ve tried it. But the opt out rather than opt in approach can help. Not sure how practical but when buying season ticket or maybe when buying tickets for big matches, a condition of such purchase Is joining TiK and giving a minimum fee ( that can be increased at time). If the form contains the similar info required to acquire the season ticket, it’s no extra hassle. There is an opt out box.

Otherwise positive promotion and time. Probably all been said and done by you folks in the past.

 

 

I'm not one of "you folks", just somebody who supports TiK. Think we've exhausted the subject now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...