Diamonds are Forever

Spot on, if Celtic didn't like small players then how is James Forrest pretty much the only player to come through their system in the last 5 years to be a regular/semi-regular? I think it's partly an excuse to save face from some people - 'Well it wasn't that I wasn't good enough, I was just too small'. And if it geniunely has been given as the reason by the club it's a polite way of telling them (that in their opinion, sometimes they are wrong) they aren't good enough. The only position where height matters is centre back (even then, try telling that to Fabio Cannavaro), but it's rare in Scotland you'd be playing that position anyway if you're small, it completely defies logic to think that clubs release players who have the ability just because they might not be tall.

I agree about the midfield in general (never rated Marenghi or Cook but guessing only one of those would play) and because of that I think if the defence can be made into a solid unit I think you'll do well. But that does seem to be a dodgy area at the moment (admittedly my knowledge of some of those defenders isn't the same as the midfield or attack), and it's undoubtedly a small squad, although most clubs will still bring in players throughout the season so might be a non-issue. I'd say Stenny are the biggest unknown quantity this season, wouldn't be surprised if they finished anywhere from 3rd to 9th, depends how the defence works out.

I'd guess I've seen most of your new players at least as much as you have (Cook more than I care to remember). Seems an improvement on last year, surprised you're so touchy with a comment which wasn't even particularly negative.

I'm the same, I do hesitate making predictions before the season because you've very little to go on and can end up looking rather stupid. But that squad looks extremely light and has huge question marks over the defence. Cook and Marenghi are passengers most of the time. McMenamin will guarantee you 10-15 goals however and Gilhaney has the ability to be that one special player that every team needs - in the Gibson, McManus, Fraser mould from last season.

Ward's done very well given his limited ability. It was only a few years ago that he was losing to dross like Chris Eaton just trying to get into the Davis Cup team.

He'd still be a huge underdog versus Kyrgios and Tomic and be unlikely to beat any others who he might play though. It'll come down to the doubles again. The doubles is a lot more unpredictable and whilst GB should expect to win that it's by no means a certainty.

The argument against that is that if the doubles match goes to 5 sets then Andy would be less likely to beat Simon, although I think he would beat him anyway. I've not seen enough of Inglot to really judge, although I know he has a huge serve and is probably a more similar partner to John Peers, which might be better given Jamie's recent success.

What does being a 'winner' actually mean in this sense? Apart from never actually winning anything obviously. McKeown was a solid player in a compact defence which played half it's games on a horrible, tiny pitch which played to his strengths. In a better league, in a team that plays a more expansive (or at least tries to) style of football he's likely to get found out. A strange signing really.

BRE did a decent job for us overall last season, had a few stupid mistakes but he improved over his stay with us. Certainly has the physical attributes and ability (defensive ability, not footballing ability) to be a very good defender, he just needs some proper coaching and regular football with an experienced defender next to him. His best games were away to Dunfermline and Morton where it was backs to the wall and he wasn't able to fanny around on the ball and just had to keep it simple. He's better in the air than Tulloch Gorum gives him credit for I'd say. He could maybe be better in the air given his height and presence, but he'll still win the vast majority of balls in the air near him, it's certainly not a weakness. I'd be surprised if he didn't turn out to be a good signing.

Being the worst full-time side in the country (not counting Ayr's half-arsed effort) means you'll always be signing players very late as you have to wait until they have been rejected by every other full-time side. We experienced this for a few seasons before turning part-time.

That the current generation of managers is largely from the playing days of the 80s and 90s when the percentage of black players was a lot lower than it is now. As more recent generations of players - where there are a lot more black players - go into coaching there will be more and more black coaches and managers, as we are seeing already infact. The Rooney rule will end of getting the credit for changes that will happen - and are happening - regardless. To get a true idea if people are racist towards black managers we would need to know how many applicants there are from black coaches/managers, compared with white managers, and see if the proportions are the same or different, I doubt these figures exist though.

Good interview, tries a bit too hard to make out he wasn't just Roberts' side kick though. Quite liked him at Airdrie. Not the greatest player but always gave 100% and scored a few great goals, a cracking volley away at Raith sticks in the memory.

That's pretty much it. His problem is that when he plays badly it's usually the serve that collapses, which means he can't just hang in there holding his serve like some players could, it just gets taken apart and the scoreline can look a bit ugly.

Depends what we mean by 'over it' I guess, I doubt he lies awake at night thinking about it, or ever really thinks about it. So in that sense he has moved on. But when he gets asked about it's probably natural to still feel a resentment towards them. To me that's different from someone continually making a point of actively carrying a grudge against someone and not letting it go.

He was asked a question specifically about his relationship with Grady and McManus, to say he was stabbed in the back doesn't mean he hasn't moved on, it's just him giving an account of what he thinks happened. Besides saying 'no comment' how else could he have truthfully answered that question?

McCann not being there will have virtually no practical implications in the team (infact if his punditry is anything to go by him not being there will probably benefit them!) but I do get why people might not like the signal it gives out. Particularly at a full-time club. If I was a player I doubt I'd listen to someone who saw his coaching job as less important. As has been mentioned though, if Dunfermline were winning no-one would care.

On paper the draw looks pretty good, and with Murray you're heavily odds on to get 2 points in the bag straight away against anyone other than Serbia, Spain and Switzerland. Ward has had a couple of great results, relative to his ranking, in the last couple of years however even then against anyone higher than 20 in the world you'd be relying on a huge upset. So it comes down to doubles where we're pretty good, but it's probably a toss of a coin against most countries. Hopefully we beat France as then it's Australia/Kazahkstan, which is very winnable for a semi final.

I listened to Paul Murray's interview on Sportsound earlier. Utterly delusional and clearly he's learned nothing from the last few years. Rangers will be back challenging Celtic in 2 years, Rangers are the biggest club in Scotland and need to lead the way on Scottish football, the standard of the Premiership is lower since Rangers declined (possibly because there is one less team spending money on players they can't afford) were amongst some of his claims. His generation of Rangers fans will never change, they've been brainwashed to believe this nonsense. However I suppose they have little choice but to believe him, the alternatives are even worse.

From what I remember of Potter he had most of those. A pretty talentless player who made a career out of having the above assets. Certainly wouldn't have thought there was any reason to think he'd be a particularly bad manager based on his playing career.

What do you see in a player that suggests they will make a good manager?

Not sure if it's harder but I definetely have more admiration for someone who makes a 147. I think mainly for what's been touched on already about the variables, it requires you to think, adapt and be inventive. A 9 dart finish doesn't require any of that, it's the same every time. On the other hand with a 147 you can get away with some misjudged shots - like poor positioning - but pot your way out if trouble. In that sense I doubt any 147 has ever been 'perfect' the way the player had planned to play every shot.

I think it's often made out that players like him have more talent than they actually do, as it makes a nice story for the media that they are talented but are throwing their career away. They always need one or two of the 'wasted talent' stories in every generation.

I disagree, the one thing he does always do is highlight where the problems stem from. In every single video I've ever seen him do he does this. I agree he very rarely offers solutions as such, but what do people expect? Just because he doesn't have a global utopian plan of action doesn't mean he isn't justified in highlighting very real issues in our society. It's up to everyone to come up with ideas to fix the problem, not a comedian. The first step is highlighting some of the main issues, which the media does not do because it has its own agenda. So he tries to do it, and generally does it very well.

As a general rule, anyone referred to by their nickname on a sports show is a moron employed purely on the old pals act. 'Biscuits' and 'Doddsy' (admittedly I'm not sure adding y to someone's name constitutes a nickname, but still) being the Sportsound culprits. Richard Gordon is decent at holding the show together, his judgement of football is horrendous though, particularly regarding Aberdeen. He was telling us that Reynolds was Scotland's best defender before the Georgia game, and was one of those Dons fans saying that Russell Anderson should have been a starter for Scotland years ago. I don't really blame him for that though, most football fans are deluded when it comes to their own club and in general his bias doesn't show. I agree with the comment earlier about Derek Ferguson's enthusiasm, he sounds thick as mince and doesn't really offer much insight but he sounds enthusiastic in a way that doesn't grate on you - unlike Liam Macleod.

We do, but I don't really believe it's the real reason in most cases. It's also the kind of excuse that a released player would use to save face. If you look at the young players that have come through the youth teams in recent years they seem to all be relatively small players - Forrest, Gauld, McGregor and many more around the Premiership. It's pretty clear that if you're talented then being small is not going to prevent you making it.