Diamonds are Forever

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.

'too small' is just a polite way of telling a youngster that (in their opinion) they're not good enough. The only position where being small is a real hindrance is centre back but it's rare you'd play that position anyway unless you were at least average height.In short, the 'he was released for being too small' line is almost certainly not the real reason. Why would a club release a player which they thought had the talent just because they weren't tall? Defies logic. Celtic just misjudged the guy's talent, or he was a 'late developer' and needed first team football. If they had something against small players how did Forrest and McGregor make it through the youth teams?

He also plays in a 3-5-2 at Hull, so plays a different role with different responsibilities for Scotland. I know it's not exactly a major change of position but it does mean learning things like positioning and 'when to go' in a 4-4-2 for Scotland will take longer.

He's benefitted from being in a team which now tries to play football, during the Smith/McLeish era he was pointless for Scotland, but then that's because he was in a team where the main intention was to kill the game and score from a set-piece. Again, I was really impressed by us last night, partly because we tried to play good football but also when we were prevented from doing that - to some extent - by a team shitfesting we were also able to mix it. We have a great mix of wanting to play the 'right way' but also realism, and knowing what we have to do to win. Ireland, as anyone who has actually watched them recently and wasn't taken in by a flukey draw with Germany will tell you, are a pretty rotten team. They tried to kill the game and score from a set-piece and had nothing else to offer. I think we should be wary about getting all pretentious about teams shitfesting though as it's what we've been doing for the last 8 years before Strachan came in. And in fairness they were missing McCarthy and Hoolahan who would have added a bit more skill to their team. In some ways I think playing away to Ireland might suit us better, they will have to win that game so may have to come out and play and make it more of a footballing game - which I think suits us more than them. We are in a really strong position just now, we can look at umpteen scenarios but I think getting at least a draw in Ireland and beating Poland are the crucial fixtures and would see us qualify. Those results would give us a superior head to head to both of them and effectively give us an extra point. That would give us what we have now, 6 from Gibraltar, 4 from Ireland and Poland, plus anything we get from Georgia and Germany, and knowing that finishing level with Ireland or Poland would put us ahead of them. Great being optimistic!

Rubbish, we'd be six behind but with Gibraltar to play twice, so only 3 behind effectively.

Morrison will be injured. Mulgrew was abysmal on Sunday in the position he is playing tonight so I don't hold out much hope.

Think he may have been better if he was in Djokovic's group as that way he would have avoided him in the semi-finals. It's quite likely he'll finish second and draw him in the semis now. Equally he could win his group and get a nice semi-final I suppose.

Good win against Ferrer in straight sets, thought he played really well, minus 15 minutes at 3-0 in the second set. He should win the final tomorrow in that form. If he does it would take a bizarre set of results in Paris to see him not qualifying.

I thought a couple of months ago that he simply wasn't playing enough matches, and that was leading to inconsistency on the court. He was getting a bye in the first round of a Masters and then getting knocked out in the quarters, and then not playing until the next Masters and he just looked a bit rusty on the court - or to use a football cliche 'not match fit'. Having a light schedule is fine if you're going far into tournaments but he wasn't really and I think playing regularly recently has helped get his eye in and got that competitive edge back. Obviously there are physical implications of that though, but at this point in the season that shouldn't matter too much. I still think given his injury he's had a decent season in terms of the Grand Slams - reaching at worst the quarter-finals in each one and reaching a semi-final at Roland Garros, that's pretty consistent and a good base to work from for next year when he should be in a better condition. With the doubts over Nadal's participation in London and where he stands now I think a win tomorrow should be enough bar some unlikely results in Paris. It'll be another very close match though, toss of a coin.

And the winner of that semi-final should really win the whole thing looking at what's left in the other half. Makes the semi-final between Murray and Ferrer (if it is him) a huge match in the race to London.

I'm not sure how good that would actually be for him. His career has been pretty rushed so far and I think he could do with a couple of years of regular football in the Premier League. His game is still very basic and he's dodgy defensively. Hull gives him the chance to progress at a level where there wont be a huge spotlight and pressure on him. Having said all that, if I was at Hull and Arsenal came in for me I'd be off like a shot.

In that environment there is also peer pressure to consider though. A lot of fans may have been worried about being seen as 'less Scottish' and felt they had to fit in with that crowd.

What an abortion of a post. People have died to give us the freedom to vote how we choose, not to vote for a specific party or ideal. I know many people for both sides and every one of them is voting the way they are because they believe it is best for them and this country. They may be mistaken, but they are doing what they feel is right. To say that they are displaying some kind of betrayal just shows the very small mindedness that you accuse them of having. I hope it's a Yes vote on Thursday, and if it is it will be because of people who have talked with empathy and passion, people who understand the geniune concerns that normal people have and have talked them round. It wont be because of people who have displayed a paranoid, bitter, small man syndrome like you.

I only wish I had big money to put on anything! I take your point, however to me all the evidence suggests that there is a far greater than 50/50 chance that Yes will get more than 46.5%. It's a great value bet.

Yes to get over 46.5% is even money. If I had any life savings they'd now be on that. Ridiculous price

It would be a great job for Murray. Too many managers take too big a step up too early. All things considered it's a pretty easy job (no chance of relegation, no expectation to win a title and missing out on the play-offs with Rangers, Hearts, Hibs and Falkirk in the league isn't much of a disappointment) and would give him the chance to get used to full-time football. As good a job as Murray has done, it's still only one job. Sometimes managers and clubs can just fit perfectly (look at Butcher and ICT) and taking a small step up and doing a good job there will help him as a manager and help his CV. Not sure how much money Queens have to buy him though. You'd think the McIntyre money would just about cover it though.

If ever we saw a case of polls not mattering until they show you in the lead then this is it. However I do feel they actually represent the reality. Yes will win, Salmond's embarassing showing in the first debate set us back briefly, but he recovered well and it's been one way traffic from there. To make it even sweeter I got it at 9/2 a few weeks back.

The issue of whether Scotland is a country is, to me, the key point in the debate. The 2 key questions are - do you believe Scotland is a country? And do you believe in democracy? If the answer to both those is yes then surely you have to vote yes. To do otherwise would be a total contradiction.

That was a terrible performance from Murray, quite concerning to watch. It wasn't even as if Federer played well - he actually had more unforced errors than Murray despite winning in straight straights. A pretty rotten match all in. Like I said last week I still think Murray looks short of match practice, he only played twice last week and three times this week and before that hadn't played for ages. I still think he'll have a decent US Open but a lot will depend on the draw given his low seeding.

A 0-0 draw, but with Yes needing a 3-0 win to take the title... It counts as a defeat relative to the referundum. I agree Darling was terrible also, but that only shows how bad Salmond was. Whether we like it or not Salmond is the one who has to do most of the convincing, Darling's role is to make people feel what we have at the moment is not worth risking. Darling achieved his objective more than Salmond achieved his, by a long way. Salmond will need to absolutely maul Darling in the next debate for it to have any impact, another tit for tat one like this with Salmond dredging up old quotes is not good enough.

It's not the press at all, just go back and read the thread on here as it was happening, people could see he was having a stinker straight away - and that's from a largely pro Yes forum.

Why is that amazing? It was blatantly obvious to anyone not blinded by bias that Darling came out on top. There are few things that the general public dislike more about politicians than their inability/refusal to answer a straight question with a straight answer, and Salmond displayed that over the currency issue. It showed a real sign of weakness. I thought his performance summed up their whole campaign - it's just been lacking conviction and, weirdly, passion. He looked like he couldn't be arsed.

Chucked the 3rd set away maybe, but he was fortunate to make it that far, he was second best for most of the match I felt. The only time he got the upper hand (end of the 2nd set, start of the 3rd) was down to Tsonga's serve collapsing temporarily. He still looks a little rusty to me and short of match practice, doesn't look as steady or reliable as he needs to be.

Not surprised to see the odds for No shortening after last night, by any objective measure No came out of it better as Salmond did nothing at all to convince people that becoming Independent was a safe or secure thing to do. It was a really poor showing from him, no doubt. However I still think Yes will win. Mainly because I can hardly see anyone who is planning to vote Yes changing to No. I don't know anyone who has changed from Yes to No, it seems like once you 'see the light', as it were, you don't go back. But I think there a lot of people who probably think they are a No - almost by default because they have never thought about it - and could easily change to Yes. To me it seems like a one way, very slow moving tide. It's just whether Yes can convert enough before polling day. Either way, 5/1 is ridiculous value.

Probably, which makes it even more likely Labour will win.